Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.35 seconds)
Chander Prakash vs Apparel Training And Design Centre ... on 10 February, 2021 cites

Sukhdev Singh & Ors vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi And ... on 21 February, 1975

In Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 1 SCC 421, the Supreme Court was concerned with an order for removal from service of employees in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Industrial Finance Corporation and Life Insurance Corporation. The Supreme Court held that a combination of state funding and an unusual degree of control over the management and policies would be critical in considering whether the organization would be state. It held that employment under public corporation would be public employment and therefore employees would have the protection which appertains to public employment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 119 - Cited by 781 - A N Ray - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Arun Kumar Roy on 23 January, 1986

In Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Roy (supra), the question was whether a temporary government servant could be terminated as the one month's salary and allowance was not paid. The Court held that the employees were governed by Central Civil Service Temporary Service Rules, 1965 and not the order of appointment. Once an employee is appointed by a public authority, though the employment originates in a contract, it acquires a status under the service rules and would no longer be under the contract. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are relevant and are set out below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - V Khalid - Full Document

L. Robert D'Souza vs The Executive Engineer Southern ... on 16 February, 1982

This itself shows that such a conclusion has been arrived at without any basis and in complete breach of principles of natural justice. This is a black mark termination and, hence, without a disciplinary enquiry the same cannot be upheld by this Court. He further submitted that as per the Service Rules, the procedure for retirement is only upon superannuation and in case of regular employees nothing less than superannuation would constitute retirement. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment L Robert D Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another 1982(1)SCC645. Thus, regular employees who are permanently on the rolls of the Centre could not have been terminated without the three month notice period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 256 - D A Desai - Full Document

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs All India Garment Exporters Common ... on 25 January, 2012

In appeal, the Division Bench in Apparel Export Promotion Council (supra) observed that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge impugned was in the context of the situation as prevailing at the time of filing of the writ petition i.e. the year 1998. The subsequent changes of the year 2000 knocked off the basis laid in the writ petition for the relief claimed and granted by the learned Single Judge. It observed that the respondents/writ petitioners did not take any steps whatsoever for challenging the said amendment of Exim Policy in March 2000. The court then observed that the challenge by the writ petitioners at the time of filing of the writ petition to such classification (creating classification of voting and non-voting members), even if maintainable when the writ petition was filed, in the light of the amendments, did not survive. The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. The Division Bench did not make any observations in respect of the findings of the Ld. Single Judge relating to the role and standing of AEPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next