Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 60 (1.05 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
"23. We may now consider State of Haryana v Piara Singh.
There, the Court was considering the sustainability of certain
directions issued by the High Court in the light of various orders
passed by the State for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary
employees and daily-wagers or casual labour. This Court started by
saying:
The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 23 February, 1990
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971
The Court adverted to the theme of
constitutionalism in a system established on the rule of law,
expanded meaning given to the doctrine of equality in general and
equality in the matter of employment in particular, multifaceted
problems including the one relating to unwarranted fiscal burden
on the public exchequer created on account of the directions given
by the High Courts and this Court for regularisation of the services
of persons appointed on purely temporary or ad hoc basis or
engaged on daily wages or as casual labourers, referred to about
three dozen judgments including R. N. Nanjundappa v T.
Thimmiah, Daily Rated Casual Labour v Union of
64
India , Bhagwati Prasad v Delhi State Mineral Development
Corpn.65, Dharwad Distt.
South Central Railway Employees ... vs B. Yashodabai And Ors. on 14 August, 2002
18. To be fair to her, Ms. Chatterjee did not, at any point of time,
dispute the applicability, to the facts of the applicants before us, of the
decision in Jaggo. Her initial submission was, however, that the
decision in Jaggo was per incuriam, as it was contrary to earlier
decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, of Larger Benches.
Subsequently, on her attention being drawn to the fact that the
Supreme Court had held that in South Central Railway Employees
Co-op Credit Society Employees Union v B. Yashodabai9 that the
High Court could not declare a judgment of the Supreme Court to be
9 (2015) 2 SCC 727
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11693/2019 and other connected matters Page 9 of 85
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.04.2025
13:49:32
per incuriam, Ms. Chatterjee slightly modified her stand to state that,
as earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, which were binding
precedents, had elucidated the law contrary to the elucidation which is
to be found in Jaggo, those earlier decisions would have to be
followed. There can be no doubt about the fact that Ms. Chatterjee
was clearly entitled to raise the said contention. We would, however,
proceed to address its merits, by and by.