Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)

Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013

14. A perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) thus indicates that the Apex Court has held that reinstatement entails being put back in a former state, condition or office. Thus the award of the Labour Court dated 29.5.1997, once it directed for reinstatement of Hansraj would entail Hansraj being reinstated in service, meaning thereby his service would be treated with effect from 24.6.1977 itself. The Labour Court only deprived Hansraj of back wages and thus in the absence of Hansraj having not challenged the award of Labour Court, would not be entitled for any back wages but then reinstatement would mean being in service with effect from 24.6.1977. The award of the Labour Court has already been affirmed by this Court with the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents/Corporation on 31.8.1997. The natural corollary of the award having been affirmed would be the reinstatement of Hansraj having been affirmed. Thus service of Hansraj would be with effect from 24.6.1977. Accordingly the stand taken by the respondent in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that as Hansraj was not in service from 1.2.1979 to 1998 so as to entail him for being considered for regularisation is thus patently misconceived and cannot be said to be a valid ground for rejection of the claim of Hansraj for regularisation. Further, the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 9.2.2018 only distinguishes the claim of Hansraj viz a viz Sri Kuldeep Lal but then even Sri Kuldeep Lal had an award in his favour and if in the writ petition no counter affidavit had been filed by the respondents/Corporation, yet the said judgment was also affirmed on a challenge being raised by the Corporation by filing Special Appeal (D) No.37 of 2017. As such, the case of Hansraj cannot be allowed to be distinguished on the ground that the judgment was passed in different circumstances. It is also not denied by the respondents that Sri Kuldeep Lal had been regularised with effect from 3.5.2002 which clearly comes out from a perusal of the order dated 12.5.12017 by which the pay fixation had been given to Sri Kuldeep Lal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 1432 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors vs Somvir Singh on 12 May, 2006

So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Fertilizers Limited (supra) is concerned, the same was a matter pertaining to regularisation of services of contractual employee appointed in violation of prescribed procedure. The same is not the case here as the respondents have not disputed the appointment of Hansraj, as such the said judgment is also distinguishable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors. vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 2 April, 2003

15. So far as the judgment in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board Raebareli (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the respondents, is concerned, the same is distinguishable inasmuch as the same pertains to the Industrial Tribunal holding the workman entitled for regularisation. The same is not the case in the present case as no order for regularisation has been issued by the Labour Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - S N Srivastava - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Others vs Hansraj Singh ?& Others on 2 February, 2010

Being aggrieved with the said award, the respondents filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1963 of 1998 In re: U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Sri Hansraj and others and this Court vide order dated 11.7.1998, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, directed the Corporation to allow the workman to work and salary be paid. It is contended that in pursuance thereof Hansraj was reinstated and continued in service. Subsequently, the writ petition itself was dismissed on merits vide order dated 31.8.2017, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, meaning thereby that the award dated 29.5.1997 was affirmed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - S Misra - Full Document
1