Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Kishore N. Chemburkar & Ors on 11 April, 2018 cites

Surendra Kumar & Ors vs Greater Noida Ind. Development ... on 2 July, 2015

11. Mr.Gavnekar relied upon the decision of Surendra Kumar and others vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. 2015 (14) SCC 382 and submitted that the question of regularisation of services will have to be considered on merits in the light of principles settled by the Supreme Court inter alia in the case of Umadevi (supra) and that the State Government and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise appointments the services of such irregularly appointed persons, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of Courts or tribunals as a one time measure and should further ensure that regular recruitment is undertaken to fill the vacancies of sanctioned posts and that the process must be set in Motion within a period of six months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sayaji Mahadu Gavhane And Others vs M/S Bajaj Auto Limited on 19 January, 2018

12. Mr.Gavnekar relied upon a decision of the Single Judge of this Court in 7/13 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:18:26 ::: wp4561.2001 case of Sayali M. Gavhane & Ors. vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (2018 SCC Online Bom.81) wherein this Court has taken a view that in case of grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law the High Court could interfere under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - M S Sonak - Full Document

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

The Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 356 has held that existence of legal vacancy is must be established and the power to recruit with the employer must also be demonstrated. In absence thereof workmen cannot succeed in proving unfair labour practice. Two ingredients must be established if one is claiming benefit of model standing order Clause 4C. Unless availability of a vacancy and power of the employer to create the posts and to fill it is brought on record, mere completion of 240 days cannot 9/13 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:18:26 ::: wp4561.2001 and does not enable the workman to claim permanency under clause 4C.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 720 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 Next