Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (0.68 seconds)
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 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 Punjab & Anr vs Surjit Singh & Ors on 4 August, 2009

(i) It is apparent, that this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh32, did hold, that the determination rendered in paragraph 55 of the judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case28, was in exercise of the power vested in this Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. But the above observation does not lead, to the conclusion or the inference, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not applicable to temporary employees. In fact, there is a positive take-away for the temporary employees. The Constitution Bench would, in the above situation, be deemed to have concluded, that to do complete justice to the cause of temporary employees, they should be paid the minimum wage of a regular employee, discharging the same duties. It needs to be noticed, that on the subject of pay parity, the findings recorded by this Court in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case28, were limited to the conclusions recorded in paragraph 55 thereof (which we have dealt with above, while dealing with the case law, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’).
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 332 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Charanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc on 5 October, 2005

21. Learned counsel for the appellants have relied on Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Article 39(d) does not mean that all the teachers working in the school should be equated with the clerks in BCCL or the Government of Jharkhand for application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. There should be total identity between both groups i.e. the teachers of the school on the one hand and the clerks in BCCL, and as such the teachers cannot be educated with the clerks of the State Government or of BCCL. The question of application of Article 39(d) of the Constitution has recently been interpreted by this Court in State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 321, wherein Their Lordships have put the entire controversy to rest and held that the principle, 'equal pay for equal work' must satisfy the test that the incumbents are performing equal and identical work as discharged by employees against whom the equal pay is claimed. Their Lordships have reviewed all the cases bearing on the subject and after a detailed discussion have finally put the controversy to rest that the persons who claimed the parity should satisfy the court that the conditions are identical and equal and same duties are being discharged by them. Though a number of cases were cited for our consideration but no useful purpose will be served as in Charanjit Singh all these cases have been reviewed by this Court. More so, when we have already held that the appellants are not the employees of BCCL, there is no question seeking any parity of the pay with that of the clerks of BCCL.” Based on the above consideration, this Court recorded its conclusion as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 386 - S N Variava - Full Document

Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003

(vii) In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh30, a three-Judge bench of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj27, the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case10, and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy11, laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared, that if the concerned daily-wage employees could establish, that they were performing equal work of equal quality, and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from the date of filing the writ petition), would be justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 640 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, this Court held that the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees. This Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. This Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next