Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.37 seconds)
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation ... vs Nilkanth Namdeo Patil on 16 December, 2016 cites

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996

46. We have consciously not referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25 (by a two- Judge division bench), in the preceding two paragraphs. We are of the considered view, that the above judgment, needs to be examined and explained independently. Learned counsel representing the State government, had placed emphatic reliance on this judgment. Our analysis is recorded hereinafter:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 450 - S V Manohar - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Anr vs Tilak Raj And Ors on 14 July, 2003

(iii) In State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj27, this Court took a slightly different course, while determining a claim for pay parity, raised by daily- wagers (- the respondents). It was concluded, that daily-wagers held no post, and as such, could not be equated with regular employees who held regular posts. But herein also, no material was placed on record, to establish that the nature of duties performed by the daily-wagers, was comparable with those discharged by regular employees. Be that as it may, it was directed, that the State should prescribe minimum wages for such workers, and they should be paid accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 434 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016

khs/DEC.2016/12153-d ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 00:47:30 ::: 51 (supra) which again needs to be distinguished for the same reasons. The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. vs. The Industrial Court and Ors. (supra), judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match Company Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein & are distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints (the suprema lex - see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority and others (supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 2405 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009

Violation of Clause 4C of the MSO may tantamount to an unfair labour practice under khs/DEC.2016/12153-d ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 00:47:30 ::: 50 item 9 of Sch. IV of the 1971 Act but unless & until, other additional factors are proved on record, finding of indulgence in an unfair labour practice under item 6 of Sch. IV thereof can not be reached. As explained by the Hon. Apex Court in case of Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (supra), existence of a legal vacancy must be established & as discussed above, the power to recruit with the employer must also be demonstrated. In absence thereof, workman can not succeed in proving the commission of unfair labour practice under item 6 by the employer. These two ingredients, therefore, also must be established when benefit of Cl. 4-C is being claimed. Unless availability of a vacancy is shown or then power with the employer to create the post and to fill it is brought on record, mere continuation of 240 days can not and does not enable the workman to claim permanency by taking recourse to Cl. 4C read with item 9 of Sch. IV of 1971 Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 720 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd vs Industrial Court on 23 February, 1994

khs/DEC.2016/12153-d ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 00:47:30 ::: 51 (supra) which again needs to be distinguished for the same reasons. The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. vs. The Industrial Court and Ors. (supra), judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match Company Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein & are distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints (the suprema lex - see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority and others (supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 181 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Mahendra L. Jain & Ors vs Indore Development Authority & Ors on 22 November, 2004

khs/DEC.2016/12153-d ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 00:47:30 ::: 51 (supra) which again needs to be distinguished for the same reasons. The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. vs. The Industrial Court and Ors. (supra), judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match Company Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein & are distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints (the suprema lex - see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority and others (supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 349 - S B Sinha - Full Document

May And Bakar Ltd. vs Shri Kishore Jaikrishandas Ichaporia ... on 1 July, 1991

The Division Bench of this Court in May & Baker Ltd. v. Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia (supra) while construing Section 10-A(3) held that the expression "other law" would not refer to the model standing orders or the certified standing orders since they are laws made under the provisions of parent act itself and not under any other law. The Model Standing Orders and Certified Standing Orders, held the Division Bench, "are laws no doubt but they are laws made under the provisions of the Act". They were held not to be provisions under any other law. This discussion therefore shows how these words "in derogation of any law for the time being in force" in Cl. 32 of MSO need to be understood & does not help Adv. Jaiswal or Adv. Khan."
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 175 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Devinder Singh And Ors. on 21 July, 1997

(v) In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh26 this Court held, that daily- wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay-scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The above direction was issued after accepting, that the concerned employees, were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post, by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 152 - Full Document
1   2 Next