Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Integrated Rural Development Agency vs Ram Pyare Pandey on 24 February, 1995

Maulana Azad Educational Society And ... vs Ram Surat Gupta And Others on 16 July, 1999

In Integrated Rural Development Agency v. Ram Pyare Pandey, (1995) 3 JT (SC) 119 : 1995 AIR SCW 1528, the Apex Court again reaffirmed the explanation carved out in Nandganj Sihori Sugar Limited, AIR 1991 SC 1525 (supra) and placed reliance on Ridge v. Baldwin, (1963) 2 All ER 66 (para 5). The relevant portion from the said English judgment is quoted for convenience :
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. K.T. Shivaiah vs G. Puttaswamy Gowda And Anr. on 20 December, 2002

The Supreme Court noticing the judgment in the case of INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY v. RAM PYARE PANDEY (supra) has ruled that a declaratory suit is maintainable taking into consideration the character of the employer. In the case on hand, I have mentioned earlier that the respondent cannot said to be totally a private employer as understood in law. This Court in somewhat identical circumstances has ruled that in the absence of any positive action on the part of the respondent in the light of the decree the workman is deemed to be in employment and is entitled for his wages. In these circumstances, the grant of compensation is ordered in this case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - R Gururajan - Full Document

M.P. Cancer Chikitsa Evam Sewa Samiti ... vs Sanjeev Saxena on 6 October, 2004

In support of his contention that the defendant No. 1 though is a registered society but is not created by or under any statute, therefore, a distinction has to be drawn between society merely registered as a society under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 and a society created by the statute, he relied on the judgments passed in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. v. Lakshmi Namin and Ors. (AIR 1976 SC 888) and also in Integrated Rural Development Agency v. Ram Payare Pandey [1995 Supp (2) SCC 495].
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Kemkar - Full Document

S.C. Sharma And Others vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 August, 2000

25. If the writ is entertained and relief granted to these employees, as claimed by them. It would amount to enforcing the contract of personal service and this would be contrary to the consistent view taken by the Apex Court in series of judgments mentioned above over a long period of time. It would amount to nullifying the effect of the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, the expression "any person" found in Article 226 has to be given an interpretation which harmonise with the legal thinking expressed in the aforesaid cases relating to enforcement of contract of personal service. One therefore cannot extend the scope of expression "any person" to include those coming under the realm of private law. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning, it would not be necessary to deal with various judgments cited by the petitioners as they would fall into the pale of irrelevance, The cases cited by the petitioners are either on principle laid down in order to determine whether a particular authority is "State" or not, or relating to the principle for lifting corporate veil or concerning the welfare roll which the State organs discharge for the promotion of social and economic uplift of the people in tune with Directive Principles of State Policy etc. While there is no quarrel about the principles laid down in these judgments, suffice is to state that they are not applicable to the cases in hand in view of aforesaid discussion.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 7 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Brahma Chellaney vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 January, 2002

12. It would be appropriate to take up the reliance, on behalf of Dr. Panandiker, on the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz. (i) Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors., v. Lakshmi Narain and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 58, (ii) Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instruction & Ors. , (iii) Integrated Rural Development Agency v. Ram Pyare Pandey, and (iv) Shri Hari Krishan Sharma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which is a decision of the Full Bench of this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 4 - V Sen - Full Document

Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar vs Managing Director & Another on 21 July, 1998

It was further held that in the case of an employee who did not fall in any of the above mentioned three exceptions, an order passed by the employer in breach of their staff regulations could be merely a breach of terms and conditions, but would not be a breach of any statutory obligations and therefore, such employees are not entitled for the relief of reinstatement in service. This ratio has been reiterated by the Apex Court, subsequently, in a more recent case of Integrated Rural Development Agency v. Ram Pyare Pandey, 1995(I) C.L.R. 781 and held that in the absence of the statutory requirements, the Court should not ordinarily force an employer to recruit or retain in service an employee not required by the employer when the three exceptions laid down in the case of Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (supra) are not there. It is also well established that by affording the relief of reinstatement or back wages, the Court will, in fact, be granting specific performance of contract of service which can be done only in three exceptions cited above.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 14 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document
1   2 3 Next