Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.53 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat Co-Operative Societies Act, 1961
Gujarat Agricultural Univeristy vs All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union on 31 July, 2009
13.5
In the case of Gujarat Agricultural University
Vs. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union, reported in (2009) 15 SCC
335,
the Apex Court held that a just balance needs to be struck between
the doctrine of "no work, no pay" and the recent trend
that this doctrine is not absolute and cannot be applied as a rule
of thumb. As per the doctrine of "no work, no pay", if a
person has worked, he must be paid and if he has not worked, he
should not be paid. But there is another often repeated principle in
service jurisprudence
according to which if an employee has wrongly denied an employee his
due then in that case the employee should be given full monetary
benefits thereof. Of late, the Courts have followed the principle
that a person is not entitled to get something only because it would
be lawful to do so. A relief of reinstatement and back wages in case
of illegal retrenchment or termination under Section 25-F is also
not automatic.
B. Kota Mallaiah And Ors. vs Commissioner And Registrar Of ... on 18 September, 1990
The
position in law is now well settled. There is no dispute about the
fact that all the respondents workmen in this group of petitions are
either daily wagers or appointed on fixed salary or are temporary
workmen. There is nothing on record that they have been employed
after following the proper procedure or after issuance of
advertisement or after calling names from the Employment Exchange.
If this was the situation, the awards passed by the Labour Court are
to be tested on the anvil of the above referred judgments of the
Apex Court and in that case, the respondent workmen cannot be
reinstated with or without back wages. At the most, they can only
claim the reasonable compensation from the petitioner depending upon
their length
of service, mode of appointment, salary drawn and other relevant
factors. If all these factors are to be taken into consideration the
respondent workman in each of these petitions is entitled to the
compensation as under :-
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
13.1
In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka &
Others Vs. Umadevi & Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806,
wherein
it is held that,
"Unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper
competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any
right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the
appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were
an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the
same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a
temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the
expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that
merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is
continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would
not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent,
merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original
appointment was not made by following a due process of selection
as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to
prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees
whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees
who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any
right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment
itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.
Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of
Court, which is described as 'litigious employment', he would not be
entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the
service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be
justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if
ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to
relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a
manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas
an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the
regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of
paying an employee who is really not required. The Courts must be
careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the
economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate
the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates."