Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (3.31 seconds)State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
(iv) The petitioner shall be paid minimum scale of pay, in view
of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Shri Upen Das (supra) and also in view of the
decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh (supra).
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
State Of Assam vs Upen Das & 835 Ors on 8 June, 2017
(iv) The petitioner shall be paid minimum scale of pay, in view
of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Shri Upen Das (supra) and also in view of the
decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh (supra).
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2006
"54. The Full Bench of the High Court while
adjudicating upon the above controversy had
concluded that temporary employees were not
entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale,
merely for the reason, that the activities carried
on by daily wagers and regular employees were
similar. The Full Bench however, made two
exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in
either of the two exceptions, were held entitled
to wages at the minimum of the pay scale drawn by
regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the
Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned
Page 14 of 23
judgment are extracted hereunder : (Avtar Singh
case [Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC
OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , SCC
OnLine P&H para 37)
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual
appointee against the regular sanctioned
posts, if appointed after undergoing a
selection process based upon fairness and
equality of opportunity to all other
eligible candidates, shall be entitled to
minimum of the regular pay scale from the
date of engagement.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
In Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] , similarly, employees who had
rendered 10 years' service were granted an
exception (refer to para 53 of the judgment
extracted in the preceding paragraph). The above
position adopted by the High Court reveals, that
the High Court intermingled the legal position
determined by this Court on the subject of
regularisation of employees, while adjudicating
upon the proposition of pay parity, emerging under
the principle of "equal pay for equal work". In
our view, it is this mix-up, which has resulted in
the High Court recording its afore-extracted
conclusions.
Daily Rated Casual Labour ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 October, 1987
54.2. The High Court extended different wages to
temporary employees by categorising them on the
basis of their length of service. This is clearly
in the teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual
Labour case [Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of
India, (1988) 1 SCC 122 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 138] . In
the above judgment, this Court held that
Page 16 of 23
classification of employees based on their length
of service (those who had not completed 720 days
of service, in a period of 3 years; those who had
completed more than 720 days of service--with
effect from 1-4-1977; and those who had completed
1200 days of service), for payment of different
levels of wages (even though they were admittedly
discharging the same duties), was not tenable. The
classification was held to be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.