Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)The Executive Engineer(State Of ... vs K. Somasetty & Ors on 2 May, 1997
18. The other two decisions in Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty and others (supra) and State of U. P. and others v. U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and another (supra) also, the petitioners employed were daily wagers. In the first case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
appellant who was discharged from the work on the closure of the project was appointed on daily wages.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha ... on 6 November, 1995
Similarly in the other case of State of U. P. and others v. U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and another, the Supreme Court held that the respondent engaged daily wagers in exigencies for doing manual work at the rates fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. In the absence of post such daily wagers, although performing duty with all regular employees, were neither entitled to regularisation nor entitled to parity of pay with other regular employees.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Suresh Kumar Verma & Aar on 24 January, 1996
(4) SCC 672 and State of H. P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma, (1996) 7 SCC 562.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Awadhesh Singh on 20 May, 1993
In the first case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra), from the facts of the case it appears that the respondent Awadhesh Stngh straightaway filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming that even though he was appointed on daily wages basis, he worked for whole of the crushing season 1988-89 and he continued to work in that capacity in subsequent season up to 1990-91 but thereafter, when the Mill reopened, he was not called to join his duties. It was claimed that the petitioner was a seasonal workman and was entitled to resume his duties and he also claimed wages/salary from 8.11.1991. The writ petition was allowed by a
single Judge of this Court. However, on appeal being filed by the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., a Division Bench of this Court held that "before a workman can be declared as seasonal, he must be engaged for the crushing seasons. The appointment of the respondent was not for the crushing season but was on dally wages basis without reference to any fixed period. Such an appointment cannot be treated to be appointment for the crushing season. Merely because the nature of work of a dally wager is not of casual nature, he cannot be treated to be seasonal workman. A dally wage cannot be declared to be seasonal workman because he has worked for substantive part in more than one crushing season. Such a workman may at the most be treated as temporary workman unless his appointment is referable to crushing season and he has worked in that season." it was also held by the Court that "normally the controversy of the nature which is involved in the instant case should be decided by the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal. Writ jurisdiction is not appropriate forum for resolving such a dispute. We would have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the labour Court, but as the learned single Judge has entertained the writ petition and decided on merit, we are also disposing of the appeal on merits." Thus, in the aforesaid case, admitted facts as well as finding of facts was that the appointment of the petitioner was as a dally wager and not for the crushing season.
1