Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
(ii) appointments were made in contravention of mandatory
provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and
by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be
illegal and cannot be regularized by the State. The State could
not invoke its power under Article 162 of the Constitution to
regularize such appointments. This Court also held that
regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the
Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot
give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in
nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had been
working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a
right for regularization. “
12\18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2660 of 2022
The judgment in the said case is dated 10.04.2006. After the orders of the
Apex Court, in all fairness, the employer should have stopped giving work
quoting the judgment in Uma devi’s case. But the appellant was allowed to
continue even after the agreement came to an end and the writ petition was
filed only in 2008. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation and another V. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan
Karmchari Sanghatan reported in 2009 8 SCC 556 has held that
Umadevi’s case cannot have precedent over industrial adjudication. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus: