Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Coal India Limited vs M. Masroor Karim on 9 May, 2024 cites

Mohan Mahto vs M/S. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors on 18 September, 2007

33. The issue of statutory fervor of the National Coal Wage Agreement has been taken note by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Fields Limited, (2007) 8 SCC 549 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe about the statutory fervor of the National Coal Wage Agreement as would appear from para-10 which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 70 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958

48. There is no dispute that the Article 14 of the Constitution of India puts restrictions in making out hostile discrimination, i.e., the classification said to be unreasonable, however, reasonable classification if is there, the same does not hit the very spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors [AIR 1958 SC 538], the Hon'ble Apex Court, taking into consideration catena of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 1003 - Full Document

Baddula Lakshmaiah & Others vs Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple & Others on 20 February, 1996

49. Admittedly herein, before the learned Single Judge the specific pleading made in the writ petition was not disputed which led the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion that even the two years diploma course were considered for upgradation to E-1 Grade but it needs to refer herein that the letters patent appeal court is the furtherance of the writ proceeding as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baddula Lakshmaiah and Ors. vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 52 as such, this Court is of the view that the issue requires to be decided by this Court on merit regarding the legality and propriety of the impugned order, therefore, this Court is now proceeding to decide the issue on merit taken by the administrative authority which is impugned in the writ petition. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 72 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000

56. The second reason that even accepting that the promotion or upgradation had been granted based upon the diploma of two years can it be helpful for the writ petitioner to take the ground of parity by citing the instance of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The law is already settled in this regard that the Article 14 of the Constitution of India envisages positive equality and not the negative equality. Reference in this regard be made to the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2306 wherein at paragraph-30 it has been laid down hereunder as :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 788 - Full Document
1   2 Next