Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 64 (0.87 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Executive Engineer(State Of ... vs K. Somasetty & Ors on 2 May, 1997
However, according to my opinion, that question has been examined by the Three Judges Bench in case of General Manager, Telecom Department versus K. Srinivasan wherein the earlier decision on this point has been impliedly overruled by the Three Judges Bench of the apex court and, therefore, I am of the view that the reliance placed by Mr. Oza, on the decisions in case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty reported in 1997 AIR SCW 2627 as well as decision in case of Union of India versus Jai Narayan Singh reported in 1995 Supp.
Shankerji Cheljaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 18 January, 2000
Therefore, in absence of these important decisions on the suject matter, since the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble apex court have not been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shankerji Chelaji Thakor v. State of Gujarat is not helpful to the petitioner and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the said decision, there is no discussion on the issue at all in respect of the question as to whether the irrigation department is an industry or not.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Suresh Kumar Verma & Aar on 24 January, 1996
The other judgment relied on is that of State of Himachal Pradesh V/s. Suresh Kumar Varma & Anr. (supra). On a perusal of the fact and the law laid down it does not seem that the issue as to whether a particular department was an industry or not was in issue. What was in issue was whether the work charged employees who perform duty of transitory nature were appointed to posts and their appointments were on daily wage based in an appointment to a post. The Apex Court therein noted that such appointments were not appointments to the posts and, therefore, no directions could have been given to re-engage them in any work or appoint them against existing vacancies.
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Jai Narain Singh on 9 February, 1994
However, according to my opinion, that question has been examined by the Three Judges Bench in case of General Manager, Telecom Department versus K. Srinivasan wherein the earlier decision on this point has been impliedly overruled by the Three Judges Bench of the apex court and, therefore, I am of the view that the reliance placed by Mr. Oza, on the decisions in case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty reported in 1997 AIR SCW 2627 as well as decision in case of Union of India versus Jai Narayan Singh reported in 1995 Supp.