Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.42 seconds)
Yogendra Kumar Tyagi S/O Shri Satya Veer ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 20 May, 2011
cites
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mahatma Phule Agricultural University ... vs Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union And Ors on 24 July, 2001
13. To be seen that, in the impugned judgment, the High Court notes that, as per the law laid down by this Court, status of permanency could not be granted. In spite of this the High Court indirectly does what it could not do directly. The High Court, without granting the status of permanency, grants wages and other benefits applicable to permanent employees on the specious reasoning that inaction on the part of the Government in not creating posts amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. In so doing the High Court erroneously ignores the fact that approximately 2000 workmen had not even made a claim for permanency before it. Their claim for permanency had been rejected by the award dated 20-2-1985. These workmen were only seeking quantification of amounts as per this award. The challenge, before the High Court, was only to the quantification of the amounts. Yet by this sweeping order the High Court grants, even to these workmen, the wages and benefits payable to other permanent workmen.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
In a very recent case of State of Rajasthan vs Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429, the Apex court has emphatically state as under:-
Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2003
19. It may be true that the applicants have been languishing for years together without being regularized. That cannot be helped. The Apex Court has, in the case of Chanchal Goyal (Dr) vs State of Rajasthan (2003) 3 SCC 485 had elaborately discussed the issue of regularization of ad hoc or temporary employees with long years of service and the same is as under:-
J & K Public Service Commission vs Dr Narinder Mohan on 7 December, 1993
In J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan it was, inter alia, observed that it cannot be laid down as a general rule that in every category of ad hoc appointment if the ad hoc appointee continued for a longer period, rules of recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment by regularization be made. In the said case in para 11 the position was summed up as under:
A.K. Jain & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1969
11. This Court in A.K. Jain (Dr) v. Union of India gave directions under Article 142 to regularize the services of the ad hoc doctors appointed on or before 1-10-1984. It is a direction under Article 142 on the peculiar facts and circumstances therein. Therefore, the High Court is not right in placing reliance on the judgment as a ratio to give the direction to the PSC to consider the cases of the respondents. Article 142 power is confided only to this Court.
P.P.C.Rawani And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 November, 2008
The ratio in P.P.C. Rawani (Dr) v. Union of India is also not an authority under Article 141. Therein the orders issued by this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to regularize the ad hoc appointments had become final. When contempt petition was filed for non-implementation, the Union had come forward with an application expressing its difficulty to give effect to the orders of this Court. In that behalf, while appreciating the difficulties expressed by the Union in implementation, this Court gave further direction to implement the order issued under Article 32 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is more in the nature of an execution and not a ratio under Article 141.