Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.47 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 271 in The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Ajay Kumar on 17 February, 1997
A State before offering public service to a person must copy with the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. All actions of the State must conform to the constitutional requirements. A daily-wager in the absence of a statutory provision in this behalf would not he entitled to regularization. (See State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar and Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya v. Bal Kishan Soni).
Mahendra L. Jain & Ors vs Indore Development Authority & Ors on 22 November, 2004
Assistant /Attendant and the post of Lab Assistant is in the nature of permanent and from the record it also appears that there is not break in the service of respondent No. 2. The Court has perused the reference. From the reference it is clear that the Labour Court has answered the reference, which was referred to the Labour Court. It is now well settled that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2005 SCC (L&S) 154, Mahendra Lal Jain v. Indore Development Authority that the Labour Court can only decide the dispute referred to it and the Labour Court has got no jurisdiction to go beyond it. In such a way the Labour Court has decided the dispute according to the reference made before him. The Labour Court is bound to decide the said issue.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999
U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii And ... on 3 February, 2005
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has no power or jurisdiction to pass an award for the purpose of regularization of services of an employee. The Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in terms of the reference. The Labour Court has wrongly held that the juniors have been regularized and the allegations to this effect made in the impugned order are absolutely vague as in the matter of regularization several factors are to be considered, as Articles 14 and 16 cannot be said to be applicable. It has clearly been stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner that there is no industrial dispute and the reference has been made without applying its mind and the reference is incompetent and is not maintainable for want of industrial dispute. It has also been stated that the employees are temporarily engaged on the basis of daily wage for specific job of casual nature which cannot be said to be regular work, as such respondent No. 1 has got no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pass an order of regularization. The reliance has been placed upon a judgment reported in 2003 (2) ESC 1007, State of U.P. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut and has placed reliance on para 25 of the said judgment which is reproduced below: