Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996
13. Keeping the casual employees or Daily rated workers for a long
period without regularisation of their services is not a wise policy as held by the Apex Court in Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch, petitioner v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2342. Though the right to work was not declared as a fundamental right, right to work of workman, lower class, middle class and the poor people is means to development and source to earn livelihood and to make their right to life and dignity of person real and meaningful as held by the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors., reported in 1997 Vol. 2 Supreme Today, 165. In the said case the Apex Court held thus:
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Ministerial Karamchari Sangh on 15 October, 1997
9. Supporting the case of the State respondent, Mr. UB Saha, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ministerial Karmachari Sangh, respondents, reported in AIR 1998 SC 303 and also another decision between Union of India and Ors. Appellants v. S.K. Sareen, respondent, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 177 and submitted that even the employees holding the same and similar post performing similar works in different department under the same Government for whom different time scale of pay can be fixed as they are governed by a different Recruitment Rules wherein qualification arid promotion is different from one department to another department and apart from that burden of proof lies upon the persons/employees who claimed to parity in pay scale. Coming to the case in hand Mr. Saha submitted that these two category of services like permanent employee/permanent labourer and that of the Group 'D; or Class-IV are governed by different recruitment rules and, as such, their time scale of pay cannot be equated and the authority/Government has ample right to fix the different scales of pay for these two different categories of service and that these petitioners could not establish a case for equality in work with those of the Group 'D'/Grade-IV employees.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988
The learned senior counsel also relied upon other two decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 19 (State of U.P. and Ors. Appellants v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors. respondents) and Gujrat High Court judgment reported in 1997 Vol.
Food Corporation Of India vs Shyamal K. Chatterjee & Ors. on 28 September, 2000
The learned counsel for the petitioners also cited another decision of the Apex Court rendered in Food Corporation of India Appellant v. Shyamal K. Chatterjee and Ors., respondents, reported AIR 2000 SC 3554 and submitted that contracts - causal workers doing same jobs which are actually work of Class-IV staff, are entitled to wages on par with Class-IV employees of the Government Undertaking (Food Corporation of India) on the basis of the principles of equal pay for equal work.
Union Of India & Anr vs S.K. Sareen on 15 October, 1997
9. Supporting the case of the State respondent, Mr. UB Saha, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ministerial Karmachari Sangh, respondents, reported in AIR 1998 SC 303 and also another decision between Union of India and Ors. Appellants v. S.K. Sareen, respondent, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 177 and submitted that even the employees holding the same and similar post performing similar works in different department under the same Government for whom different time scale of pay can be fixed as they are governed by a different Recruitment Rules wherein qualification arid promotion is different from one department to another department and apart from that burden of proof lies upon the persons/employees who claimed to parity in pay scale. Coming to the case in hand Mr. Saha submitted that these two category of services like permanent employee/permanent labourer and that of the Group 'D; or Class-IV are governed by different recruitment rules and, as such, their time scale of pay cannot be equated and the authority/Government has ample right to fix the different scales of pay for these two different categories of service and that these petitioners could not establish a case for equality in work with those of the Group 'D'/Grade-IV employees.
1