Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.54 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors vs Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao Etc on 30 January, 1996
9|Page
absorbed. It has also been argued that this situation arose due to
inaction on the part of respondents. Had the applicant been absorbed /
regularized timely, he would have been retired by today. Thus,
referring to the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that applicant must not be compelled to suffer due to
inaction on the part of respondents. Now the question before the
Court is whether this Bench is empowered to give age relaxation to
the applicant or can he be granted any sort of monetary
compensation. To answer this question, it would be in the fitness of
the things to retrace the law laid down in judgment dated 31.01.1996
of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors Vs.
Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao reported in 1996 (7) SCC. The operative
portion of the said judgment is as follows:
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
21. On the basis of aforesaid discussions and facts disclosed in the
above chart, it is abundantly clear that the applicant has neither
challenged the initial retrenchment order nor the order passed by the
screening committee. It is also pertinent to mention that scheme
launched by the government is not in existence anymore and most
importantly, the applicant has crossed the age of superannuation.
This Tribunal is not empowered to grant age relaxation at a belated
stage. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case and taking into consideration the deliberations which have been
quoted above, this Tribunal is of the view that applicant can not be
13 | P a g e
granted compensatory benefits in terms of money and the prayer
made in the instant OA is not liable to be allowed. This view also
draws strength from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma
Devi case (supra) and thus, no benefit can be extended to the
applicant in the instant case. Accordingly, the instant original
application is dismissed, being devoid of merits.
Lal Chand Saini, Om Parkash Kakar And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 September, 2007
6. Learned counsel Shri Ashish Srivastava further argues that
upon the said illegal action of the respondents as stated in preceding
paragraphs, applicants who were similarly situated with the applicant
in the instant case approached the respondents expressing their
resentment. Subsequently, respondents decided to fill up the
vacancies of Group - D amongst the ex-casual labours existing in the
roll of the N.E. Railway. A large number of ex casual labours were
issued call letters regarding their screening and absorption in the
department and 01.04.1999 was fixed as the cut-off date. The
applicant was also issued letter dated 28.04.2008 and he had to
appear in the screening on 08.07.2008. Consequently the applicant
appeared however the result of the screening was not declared for a
long time period. Being aggrieved from the non-declaration of
results, the applicant along with other similarly situated candidates
filed OA No. 692 of 2009 titled Nand Lal and others Vs. Union of
India and others wherein the applicant has specifically prayed that in
terms of the Railway Board's scheme pursuant to the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Indra Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India and
others the result of the screening may be declared forthwith and the
applicant may be reengaged in the department. The said OA was
disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the
applicant by way of a reasoned and speaking order. Simultaneously,