Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)
The Union Of India Through The Post ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 13 January, 2023 cites

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

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 at length and also given careful consideration to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna and having seen the materials on record came to the conclusion that the respondent no.4 is in continuous service at the Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur since 1999 against the permanent perennial post of Sweeper on daily wage basis. There had never been any allegation against his disciplinary conduct and work culture and he had been allowed temporary status with other daily wager/workman vide Memo No. Sr.PM/MISC/2002 dated 09.08.2002 issued under the signature of Senior Post Master, Muzaffarpur, Head Office. From the evidence of the Management witnesses, it also transpired that the cleaning work is done by daily wagers and respondent no.4 and one Raju Kumar were working as Sweeper. It also contended that in the aforesaid Memo dated 09.08.2002, the name of Sri Umesh Kumar (respondent no.4) was at the top. However, only one person Sri Brij Bhushan Prasad had made permanent but the respondent no.4 has never been given the status of permanent. The reliance made by learned counsel for the petitioner on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Patna High Court CWJC No.2758 of 2019 dt.18-01-2023 11/17 rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra), in the opinion of this Court, strengthen the case of the respondent no.4 which observed that where a duly qualified person has been regularly appointed on daily wage basis against a sanctioned vacant post and has been continued for ten years or more, without intervention of any order of the Court or Tribunal, the question of regularization of service of such employees may have to be considered on merit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr vs Bijli Mazdoor Sangh & Ors on 17 April, 2007

In U.P. Power Corpn. [U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258], this Court has recognised the powers of the Labour Court and at the same time emphasised that the Labour Court is to keep in mind that there should not be any direction of regularisation if this offends the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution on which the judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 120 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964

In State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006] the Constitution Bench considered the effect of delay in filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and held: (AIR pp. 1011-12, paras 17 & 21) "17. ... It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 829 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next