Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)
J.Kasithangam vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & on 9 September, 2014 cites

S. Vijayalakshmi vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply And on 13 June, 2005

36. Also, applying the judgment of this Court in S.Vijayalakshmi V. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board reported in 2005 (3) L.L.N. 706, referred to in paragraph 19 of this judgment, I am of the view that one of the legal heirs of the deceased workman Jaganathan is entitled to seek compassionate appointment. In that case, while granting terminal benefits, compassionate appointment was denied on the ground that the petitioner therein approached the Court belatedly after 9 years of passing of the order declining compassionate appointment. Paragraph 11 of the judgment in 2005 (3) L.L.N. 706 is extracted hereunder in this regard :
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 21 - P K Misra - Full Document

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs State Of Saurashtra on 23 November, 1956

18.I am also fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. V. State of Saurashtra reported in 1957-I-LLJ-477, wherein, also the management took a plea that the concerned workman involved in the dispute was an independent contractor and not a workman employed by them and he employed his own laboureres under him. In that case, the said independent contractor was also working along with the workers said to have been employed by him and the Supreme Court reasoned that therefore, he cannot be held as an independent Contractor and on the other hand, held that he shall be treated to be an employee directly employed by the management.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 311 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

The Management Of Indian Bank vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 3 October, 1989

19.The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in 1957-I-LLJ-477 was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in The Management of Indian Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Madras reported in 1990-I-LLJ 50, wherein, the Tiny Deposit Collectors of the Indian Bank were treated by the Indian Bank as independent contractors. The Division Bench applied the law laid down by the Apex Court in 1957-I-LLJ-477 and held that those tiny deposit collectors are not independent contractors, but they are direct employees of the Indian Bank.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 15 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

S.Gandhimathi vs The Dy.Registrar Of Cooperative ... on 28 March, 2003

4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that such provision casts an obligation on the employer to confer permanent status on an employee who has completed 480 days work in course of two years. It is of course true that during the life time of the husband of the petitioner, no such permanent status was actually conferred by any order of the management. It is also true that jurisdiction has been conferred on the inspector to conduct enquiry if necessary to find out whether an employee has completed 480 days or not. However, when facts are not in dispute, merely because no such enquiry had been conducted by the inspector, the petitioner's husband cannot be denied the benefits of the Act. In view of the mandatory nature of the provision, it shall be taken that an employee who had completed 480 days in a period of two years was permanent. This view receives considerable support from the decision reported in S.Gandhimathi V. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society (Milk), Tirunelveli and others [2003 (3) L.L.N. 743].
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S. Madras Fertilisers Limited vs The Controlling Authority on 1 November, 2002

25.Even if the deceased Workman was employed as a contract workman under real contractor, the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity and the principal employer could recover the same from the Contractor, as per the decision of this Court in Madras Fertilizers Limited V. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and others reported in 2003 (I) L.L.N. 358.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 12 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

R. Lakshmi vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 3 August, 2012

33.Further, I am fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Lakshmi V. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 3840, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Division Bench, after elaborately considering all these aspects issued direction to the TNEB to issue appropriate proceedings making the petitioner's husband therein as a permanent employee and to pay the petitioner family pension, family benefits and other terminal benefits including gratuity as per Rules and regulations. The Division Bench also gave a direction to the TNEB to consider the representation of the petitioner therein for providing compassionate appointment.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Bhagwan Singh on 30 August, 1995

11. So far as the claim regarding appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, the matter stands on a different footing. As already noticed, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected long back in 1989. Unlike the payment of family pension, which is considered as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution and which is a continuing right, it cannot be said that there is any fundamental right to claim appointment on compassionate ground. As held by the Supreme Court in several cases, such as Union of India & Others V. Bhagwan Singh [1996 (1) L.L.N. 577] and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others V. Paras Nath [1999 (4) L.L.N. 80], the provision providing for appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable his legal heirs or dependents of the deceased employee to get appointment as they should not suffer due to the loss of earning bread winner of the family. In the present case, the rejection letter was communicated in 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner had remained quiet for about a decade. In such view of the matter, the prayer, so far as appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, is obviously hit by the principles of laches and such relief cannot be granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 703 - Full Document
1   2 Next