Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs Management Of Pan American World ... on 3 December, 1986
In para 9 of the decision the case of Kamal Kishore (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the question as to whether respondent No. 1-IIM is 'State' or not is no decided, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable and it should be rejected. The contention cannot be accepted, la the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M. V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani , the Supreme Court has infer alia held that the words "any person or authority" occurring in Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. These words may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the persons or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists Mandamus cannot be denied. In view of (his position of law, what is to be seen is as to whether respondent No. 1-IIM is imposed with any positive obligation to the petitioner or not. Positive obligation of respondent No. 1-IIM to the petitioner flows from the provisions of G.U. Act. The provisions of G.U. Act and this question will be considered in further detail hereinafter. At this stage suffice it to state that the contention that respondent No. 1-IIM is not 'State' and therefore writ petition is not maintainable cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985
In case termination of service is not on the ground of misconduct, then in that case, as provided under Section 51A(2) the staff member concerned should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed termination and such termination is required to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor or any officer of the University authorised by the Vice-Chancellor in that behalf. Only when a member of staff is appointed for a temporary period, this provision cannot be invoked. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was appointed for a temporary period. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner was a confirmed employee of respondent No. 1-IIM.
Francis Klein & Co. (P) Ltd. vs Their Workmen And Anr. on 17 September, 1971
21.1. Learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Klein & Co. v. The Workmen , wherein it is inter alia observed that when an employer loses confidence in his employee, particularly in respect of a person who is discharging duties of an office of trust and confidence, there can be no justification for directing his reinstatement. Relying on these observations, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the instant case order of reinstatement should not be passed. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in this case nothing is shown that the petitioner was holding an 'office of trust and confidence'. As indicated hereinabove, he was merely an office assistant like many others. It is disclosed from the record of the petition that at least there were fourteen junior employees who were working as office assistant. Thus in the cadre of office assistant there must be many more such persons. Office assistant in a huge administration like that of respondent No. 1-IIM cannot be said to be holding an office of trust and confidence. Nothing is placed on record of the petition to show that the petitioner was particularly discharging some specific functions which can be said to be of trust and confidence. Therefore the reliance placed on the aforesaid decision is of no help to the respondents.
1