Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.25 seconds)The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
9] The learned counsel for the petitioner
heavily relied to the judgment in the matter of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others
[2006 (4) SCC 1] and also on the following judgments.
Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr vs Ashok Kumar & Anr on 15 February, 2008
i] Satyaprakash and others vs. State of Bihar
and others [2010 (4) SCC 179]
ii] Ghaziabad Development Authority and
another vs. Ashok Kumar and another
[2008 (I) CLR 892 SC]
iii] Central Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer
and another [2008 (II) CLR 1020]
iv] Executive Engineer and another vs. Presiding
Officer Labour Court and another; [2008
(III) CLR 888]
v] U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd and
another vs. Uditnarayan Pande [2006 (1)
SCC 479]
vi] Mohammad Shaukat Ali vs. Industrial
Labour Court, Warangal and others [2008
(I) CLR 144]
10] The Apex Court in the matter of Umadevi in
paragraph 43, 45 and 47 has observed as under;
Executive Engineer, Shimla Electrical ... vs Presiding Officer, H.P. Labour Court ... on 9 August, 2000
i] Satyaprakash and others vs. State of Bihar
and others [2010 (4) SCC 179]
ii] Ghaziabad Development Authority and
another vs. Ashok Kumar and another
[2008 (I) CLR 892 SC]
iii] Central Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer
and another [2008 (II) CLR 1020]
iv] Executive Engineer and another vs. Presiding
Officer Labour Court and another; [2008
(III) CLR 888]
v] U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd and
another vs. Uditnarayan Pande [2006 (1)
SCC 479]
vi] Mohammad Shaukat Ali vs. Industrial
Labour Court, Warangal and others [2008
(I) CLR 144]
10] The Apex Court in the matter of Umadevi in
paragraph 43, 45 and 47 has observed as under;
Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro ... vs Shri S.C. Pandey on 24 February, 2006
12]
In M.P. State Agro Industries vs. S.C. Pande
[2006 (2) SCC 716], the Apex Court reiterated that
completion of 240 days continuous service does not by
itself confer any legal right for permanency. It is also
explained in the said judgment, if two statutes are
governing the employee, one dealing with the selection
and appointment, while the other relating to the terms
and conditions of service, an endeavour should be
made to give effect to both the statutes. However, it is
clarified that daily-wager does not hold any post as he is
not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and
Rules framed thereunder and in that view of the matter,
he does not derive any legal right.
M.P. Housing Board & Anr vs Manoj Shrivastava on 24 February, 2006
The Apex Court while dealing with the
matter also referred to the judgment of MP Housing
Board vs. Manoj Shrivastava [2006 (2) SCC 702]. In
the matter of Manoj Shrivastava, the Apex Court has
categorically held that daily-wager does not hold the
post or derive any legal right in relation thereto, unless
he is appointed, (a) against a duly sanctioned vacant
post and (b) upon following the statutory law operating
in the filed. If the appointment is made in
contravention of either of the two requirements, such
appointment would be void and such appointment does
not confer any legal right on the appointee.