Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs Chhota Birsa Uranw on 25 April, 2014 cites

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors on 16 November, 2010

10.Another practice followed by the courts regarding such disputes is that date of birth of an employee is determined as per the prescribed applicable rules or framework existing in the organization. Even this Court inspite of the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 136 has decided date of birth disputes in accordance with the applicable rules and seldom has the Court determined the date of birth as it is a question of fact fit to be determined by the appropriate forum. (See: State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble & Ors.7 Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam & Ors.8 High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao9 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 151 - D Bhandari - Full Document

G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West ... vs Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors on 2 November, 2000

4.The appellant in the present appeal has come before us seeking that the impugned judgment be set aside. The case of the appellant is, firstly, when a school leaving certificate is not a document mentioned in Implementation Instruction No. 76, the High Court was incorrect in substituting the same with the documents given in the said Instruction, thereby creating a situation which supersedes all other statutory documents like Form ‘B’ register. Secondly, the High Court should have considered that the date of birth recorded in Form ‘B’ register being a statutory document under Mines Act is binding and cannot be preceded by a non-statutory document and therefore, the inter alia holding of the High Court that School Leaving Certificate and Mining Sardar Certificate would take precedence over company records and other statutory documents is contrary to the judgment of this Court in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and Ors.1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 117 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Secretary & Commissioner, Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran on 21 September, 1993

13.We give due regard to the sensitive nature of date of birth disputes and fully agree with the approach laid down in R. Kirubakaran Case (supra). However, with an aim to prevent the cascading inconveniences caused by a change of date of birth, a wronged employee should not be denied of his rights especially when he has adhered to the procedure laid down and attempted to avoid litigation by resorting to in-house mechanisms. Public Corporations/Departments, should not benefit from their own omission of duty. In the present case, the appellant-company failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the Implementation Instruction. It is the appellant’s omission and not the inaction of the respondent which led to the dispute being raised in the courts at such a delayed stage. The attitude of such corporations wherein to avoid the rectification of a date of birth, litigation is unnecessarily prolonged just because they have number of resources at their command, goes against the grain of equity and duty towards society at large.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 236 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs S.C. Chadha on 9 February, 2004

The same approach had been followed by this Court while deciding on date of birth disputes irrespective of the relief being in favour of the workman or the employer. (See: State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha3, State of U.P. & Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay4, State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi5, State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble6) 3 (2004) 3 SCC 394 4 (2005) 6 SCC 49 5 (2006) 6 SCC 537 6 (2010) 14 SCC 423
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 92 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs Shiv Narain Upadhyaya on 28 July, 2005

The same approach had been followed by this Court while deciding on date of birth disputes irrespective of the relief being in favour of the workman or the employer. (See: State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha3, State of U.P. & Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay4, State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi5, State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble6) 3 (2004) 3 SCC 394 4 (2005) 6 SCC 49 5 (2006) 6 SCC 537 6 (2010) 14 SCC 423
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 125 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi on 19 July, 2006

The same approach had been followed by this Court while deciding on date of birth disputes irrespective of the relief being in favour of the workman or the employer. (See: State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha3, State of U.P. & Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay4, State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi5, State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble6) 3 (2004) 3 SCC 394 4 (2005) 6 SCC 49 5 (2006) 6 SCC 537 6 (2010) 14 SCC 423
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 120 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Reg.Gen., High Court Of Madras vs M. Manickam & Ors on 17 August, 2011

10.Another practice followed by the courts regarding such disputes is that date of birth of an employee is determined as per the prescribed applicable rules or framework existing in the organization. Even this Court inspite of the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 136 has decided date of birth disputes in accordance with the applicable rules and seldom has the Court determined the date of birth as it is a question of fact fit to be determined by the appropriate forum. (See: State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble & Ors.7 Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam & Ors.8 High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao9 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 23 - M Sharma - Full Document

High Court Of A.P vs N. Sanyasi Rao on 1 December, 2011

10.Another practice followed by the courts regarding such disputes is that date of birth of an employee is determined as per the prescribed applicable rules or framework existing in the organization. Even this Court inspite of the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 136 has decided date of birth disputes in accordance with the applicable rules and seldom has the Court determined the date of birth as it is a question of fact fit to be determined by the appropriate forum. (See: State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble & Ors.7 Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam & Ors.8 High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao9 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 Next