Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.68 seconds)Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981
Madan Mohan Pathak vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 21 February, 1978
11.In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India reported in (1978) 2 SCC 50 and in paragraphs 9 and 32, it was observed as follows:
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
"16.......The learned counsel also referred to the several rulings of the Supreme Court and in particular, to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Secretary of State of Karnataka -Vs- Umadevi reported in (2006)4 SCC page 1 and the decision of the Surpeme Court in Uma Rani v Registrar Cooperative Societies reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 and State of UP v Neeraj Awasthi (2006) 1 SCC 667. The thrust of his arguments was that even in the teeth of Industrial Regulations (Conferment and Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, persons who had put in 480 days of continuous work could not be regularised if the initial employment was illegal and violative of Regulations; the Act would not in such a case be applicable at all.
Section 3 in Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [Entire Act]
Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector And Anr on 2 August, 2005
12.The above judgment came to be subsequently followed by the Supreme Court in Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector reported in (2005) 7 SCC 190 and in paragraph 29, it was observed as follows:
Sh. Bakshish Singh Dhaliwal Thru Lrs. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 20 March, 2007
22.......This situation has been substantially considered in the decision of the learned single judge in Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Board Distribution Circle, Vellore -Vs- Inspector of Labour reported in 2004 (3) LLN 598. This decision itself is the subject of challenge before us but the board has, by entering in to the settlement which is in challenge, has literally made the appeals infructuous by giving in to the claims of the workmen and endorsing the correctness of the judgment. The actual status of several of the workmen had been dealt with in the judgment of the learned Judge in paragraphs 33 and 34 that adverted to the factual findings rendered by the Labour Inspector that all those workmen so called as contract labourers were actually appointed directly by the board and therefore, the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment and Permanent Status of Workmen) Act were clearly attracted. The Supreme Court has also held that creation of new posts, even if such exercise reduces chances of promotion to the existing cadre, could not be objected (Bakshish Singh Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1985 SC 1272:1985 Supplement I SCC 116.
Apsrtc National Mazdoor Union, Hyd. vs Management Of Apsrtc & Anr. on 16 June, 1999
Instances when additional cadres have been created, when Courts have expressed themselves in favour of such exercises have been in, Shujatali Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1975 1 SCR 449 : AIR 1974 SC 1631; Dharampal Vs. FCI 2000 (IV LLJ) Supplement 355; APSRTC Employees Union Vs. APSRTC 1995 2 SLT 761.
Smt.Rani Joseph vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 27 March, 2010
"16.......The learned counsel also referred to the several rulings of the Supreme Court and in particular, to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Secretary of State of Karnataka -Vs- Umadevi reported in (2006)4 SCC page 1 and the decision of the Surpeme Court in Uma Rani v Registrar Cooperative Societies reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 and State of UP v Neeraj Awasthi (2006) 1 SCC 667. The thrust of his arguments was that even in the teeth of Industrial Regulations (Conferment and Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, persons who had put in 480 days of continuous work could not be regularised if the initial employment was illegal and violative of Regulations; the Act would not in such a case be applicable at all.
1