Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Dharamvir Singh vs Ndmc on 22 July, 2009 cites

Executive Engineer Zp Engg. Divn. & Anr vs Digambara Rao Etc. Etc on 27 September, 2004

13. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 18.09.2007 passed in WP(C) No. 6898/2002. A copy of the said order of the Division Bench has been made available to the Court by Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, and the same has been perused by the Court. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated W.P.(C) No.1113/2007 Page 7 of 8 18.09.2007 relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, SP Engg. Div. & Anr. Vs. Digambara Rao & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 262; A. Umarani Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112 and Pankaj Gupta Vs. State of J&K (2004) 8 SCC 353 held that merely because casual workers had worked for 240 days in one calender year, they would not be entitled for regularisation on point of temporary status.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 63 - S B Sinha - Full Document

A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies And ... on 28 July, 2004

13. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 18.09.2007 passed in WP(C) No. 6898/2002. A copy of the said order of the Division Bench has been made available to the Court by Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, and the same has been perused by the Court. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated W.P.(C) No.1113/2007 Page 7 of 8 18.09.2007 relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, SP Engg. Div. & Anr. Vs. Digambara Rao & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 262; A. Umarani Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112 and Pankaj Gupta Vs. State of J&K (2004) 8 SCC 353 held that merely because casual workers had worked for 240 days in one calender year, they would not be entitled for regularisation on point of temporary status.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 887 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Coop. ... on 8 April, 1999

"We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also perused the aforementioned decision. We do not find that any general principle, as contended by the W.P.(C) No.1113/2007 Page 5 of 8 learned counsel for the petitioner, had been laid down in that decision. The decision was rendered in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that the plea of delay was not taken by the management in the proceeding before the tribunal. In the case on hand, the plea of delay was raised and was accepted by the tribunal. Therefore, the decision cited is of little help in the present case. Whether relief to the workman should be denied on the ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded is at the discretion of the tribunal depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt the discretion is to be exercised judicially. The High Court, on consideration of the matter, held that there was no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the tribunal. We are not satisfied that the award of the tribunal declining relief to the petitioner, which was confirmed by the High Court, suffered from any serious illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 128 - Full Document
1