Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)

Anand Bihari And Ors vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 20 December, 1990

25. Anand Bihari and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur3 is a case prior to Act 1 of 1996. Several drivers working in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation were prematurely terminated from their services on the ground that they became medically unfit to drive the heavy vehicles as they developed defective eyesight and not meeting the required vision for driving the heavy motor vehicles. 3 (1991) 1 SCC 731 PNR,J WP No.19847 of 2013, CC Nos.604 of 2016 & 1863 of 2017
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 84 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Narender Kumar Chandla vs Haryana on 4 February, 1994

In Narendra Kumar Chandla vs. State of Haryana and others4, Supreme Court held that Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the post he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge his duties. This case was also decided prior to Act 1 of 1996.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 87 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003

30. The respondent Corporations formulated schemes for provision of alternative job and other financial packages exclusively to Drivers. As noticed by the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh case (supra), Act 1 of 1996 intend to provide some sort of succor to the disabled persons. Section 72 of the Act, makes it clear that what 4 (1994) 4 SCC 460 PNR,J WP No.19847 of 2013, CC Nos.604 of 2016 & 1863 of 2017 14 is provided in Act 1 of 1996 is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 72 of the Act, Regulation 6A of the Regulations, 1964 and the Circular Instructions issued from time to time assume significance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 344 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 Next