Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
Thiruvengidaraj vs Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd on 14 November, 2022 cites

Butu Prasad Khumbhar & Ors vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. &Ors on 30 March, 1995

12.Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 225. The question https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 16 W.P.(MD) No.5839 of 2013 arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the Public Sector Undertakings were bound to give employment to all the erstwhile residents and their descendants or to treat them preferentially for employment if they were displaced due to the establishment of the industry of the Public Sector Undertaking. More than 20,000 Acres of land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for Rourkela Steel Plaint, one of the largest Steel Plants in India. A Scheme was formulated to give employment to the members of family who were displaced on account of the establishment of Steel Plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was no Scheme for employing every displaced person and therefore, dismissed the writ petition filed by a member of displaced family under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In Para Nos.6 and 7 of the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 53 - R M Sahai - Full Document

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity ... vs Arulnathan And Ors. [Alongwith W.A. No. ... on 26 June, 2003

13.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Vs. Arulnathan And Others [2003 (3) MLJ 726] and another judgment in the case of Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli, Cuddalore District v. D.Visweswaran and another reported in 2007 (8) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 16 W.P.(MD) No.5839 of 2013 MLJ 461. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically observed that, in matters of employment of persons who were displaced by acquisition of lands, no right is conferred to such persons to seek for employment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India or under any law. It was further observed that the land owners, whose lands were acquired, are only entitled to compensation. If a scheme for employment of one person from one family of land owners is framed, it may confer right for considering the request for employment by families of displaced. Except a scheme that may be formulated at the time of acquisition, it cannot be said that there was a promise to the members of displaced families so as to bring promissory estoppel. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that there was a promise at the time of acquiring the petitioner's lands or there was a scheme framed by the Government or Public Sector Undertakings that while acquiring the lands, employment guarantee was given to the members or descendants of persons who lost their lands, which was acquired for the Public Sector Undertakings for their projects. However, by virtue of subsequent orders of Government, in compliance of directions of Government, respondents have issued the recruitment notification specifically earmarking/reserving a particular post under the category of land given case.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - P D Premkumar - Full Document
1