Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Companies Act, 1956
Sudhoo vs M/S. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works And Others on 6 August, 1990
In Sudhoo vs. Ms. Haji Lal Mohd. Biriworks reported as 1990
Lab.I.C.1538 the Supreme Court held that :-
Harbans Lal vs Jagmohan Saran on 10 October, 1985
In the case of Harbans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saran reported as (1985)
4SCC 333, the Supreme Court considering the scope of the writ of
certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India held that :-
Harbans Lal & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 1 August, 1989
12. Coming to the argument on behalf of the Corporation that the principle
of equal pay for equal work did not apply in the facts and circumstances of
the case, it is seen that the reliance placed by the Corporation on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Re: Harbans Lal and Ors. (supra), is of
no avail, since that was a case where the petitioners being employed in a
Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act were
claiming wages payable to their counterparts in Government Service. Even
otherwise, this issue was finally decided by the Industrial Adjudicator based
on consideration of various dimensions of the job in both the Corporation as
well as the MCD.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Calcutta Port Sharmik Union vs Calcutta River Transport Association & ... on 13 September, 1988
In Calcutta Port Shramik Union Vs. Calcutta River Transport
Association and Ors. reported as (1988) Supp., SCC 768, the
Supreme Court after considering the scope of judicial review in relation
to an Industrial Award stated that-
Sita Devi And Others,Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 August, 1996
In relation to the reliance placed on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Re: Sita Devi and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court in
that case stated that the burden to prove and establish the right to equal
pay for equal work was upon the workman. There can be no quarrel with this
proposition. However, in the present case, it is seen that the workmen of the
Corporation established their right to equal pay for equal work before the
Industrial Adjudicator. Further, the workmen were able to establish that
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 4172 of 1996 Page 14 of 17
from the cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of the
Corporation it was unequivocally discernable that the Corporation being
"local body" had accepted the recommendation of the Fourth Pay
Commission and that, therefore, there was no justification in the workman
being denied the right to equal pay for equal work as received by their
counterparts in the MCD. Thus, in the present case, it is seen that the
Industrial Adjudicator after due consideration of the material on record,
including the resolutions of the Corporation itself in this respect and based
on the deposition of the witness appearing on behalf of the Corporation to
the effect that the Corporation as a local body had accepted the
recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, came to the conclusion
that:-