Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.32 seconds)The Gujarat Medical Practitioners' Act, 1963
Section 17 in The Gujarat Medical Practitioners' Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Charanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc on 5 October, 2005
47. We may also quote with profit the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Charanjit Singh & others - 2006 (9) SCC -321 wherein in
Para19 Court made the following observations :
State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997
50. We may also quote with profit the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another
Vs. Ram Chander & another reported in 1997(1) GLH - 969.
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 1961
12. It is true that "equal pay for equal work" is not one of the
fundamental rights, guaranteed by our Constitution. It is also
true that there is no statute or statutory rule prescribing
"equal pay for equal work". It is true that equal pay for equal
work was described by the Supreme Court in Kishori
Mohanlal Vs. Union of India - AIR 1962 SC -1139 as an
abstract doctrine. Whether it is an abstract doctrine or not, it
is one of the goals, our people have set for themselves. It is
one of the Directive Principles of our Constitution that the
State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that
there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
(Article-39(d) of the Constitution). Directive Principles are of
course, not justiciable in the sense that the courts cannot
compel the making of laws to further the Directive Principles of
State Policy. But it does not mean that the Directive Principles
have to be ignored by the courts. Far from it Article-37 of the
Constitution expressly prescribes that the directive principles
are fundamental to the governance of the country and that it
shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in
making laws. It has been said on high authority that the
Directive Principles should serve as an Instrument of
instructions to the legislature and the executive. They are the
guidelines for the legislature and the executive. So they must
serve the judiciary as an instrument of interpretation. In
interpreting other provisions of the Constitution including the
Page 15 of 50
C/LPA/295/2013 CAV JUDGEMNT
provisions relating to the fundamental rights for the purpose of
adjudicating upon the constitutional validity of any legislative
or executive action, the courts will be well justified in looking
to the Directive Principles for light and guidance or at any rate
to seek assurance. That will be a legitimate use by the Courts
of the directive principles.
The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
Steel Authority Of India Ltd.& Ors vs Dibyendu Bhattacharya on 29 October, 2010
In a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the
case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Dibyendu
Bhattacharya, reported in AIR 2011 SC 897, the Supreme
Court after a review of its earlier decisions on the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' summarized the law observing as
under:-