Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)
Ichalkaranji Mun. Council By Chief ... vs Praveen Shivgonda Patil & Ors on 1 October, 2019 cites

Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009

16. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana 4, to contend that under the shield of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra), the state authorities cannot commit unfair labour practices. In this very judgment itself, the Court had held that undoubtedly, creation of posts is not within the domain of judicial functions which obviously pertains to the executive. It is equally true that the status of permanency cannot be granted by the Court when no such post exists and that executive functions and powers with regard to the creation of posts cannot be arrogated by the Court. We may recall in the present case, the Industrial Court had directed the employer to grant permanent status to the workman immediately upon completion of 240 days of work. The Industrial Court has not even come to the conclusion that at the time of engagement of the workman, or even at the time when the judgment was rendered, sanctioned posts were vacant. The directions issued by the Industrial Court would thus virtually amount to creating post, where none existed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 720 - R M Lodha - Full Document

National Buildings Construction ... vs S. Raghunathan & Ors., S. P. Singh & Ors on 28 August, 1998

46. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents argued that on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees, especially of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to be regularized since the decisions in Dharwad, Piara Singh, Jacob, and Gujarat Agricultural University and the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also be regularized. The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the Administrative Authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn [See Lord Diplock in Council for Civil Service Unions V. Minister for the Civil Service, National Buildings Page 14 of 20 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:00:01 ::: lpa.259.20190-R.doc Construction Corpn. Vs. S. Raghunathan and Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan]. There is no case that any assurance was given by the Government or the department concerned while making the appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be withdrawn until some rational reason comes into existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was against the constitutional scheme. Though, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is no case that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No such promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and directives issued by the Government after Dharwad decision. Though, there is a case that the State had made regularizations in the past of similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularizations were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some case by this Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be regularized in the service though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularization of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. The argument if accepted would also run counter to the constitutional mandate. The argument in that behalf has therefore to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 435 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2003

46. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents argued that on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees, especially of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to be regularized since the decisions in Dharwad, Piara Singh, Jacob, and Gujarat Agricultural University and the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also be regularized. The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the Administrative Authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn [See Lord Diplock in Council for Civil Service Unions V. Minister for the Civil Service, National Buildings Page 14 of 20 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:00:01 ::: lpa.259.20190-R.doc Construction Corpn. Vs. S. Raghunathan and Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan]. There is no case that any assurance was given by the Government or the department concerned while making the appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be withdrawn until some rational reason comes into existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was against the constitutional scheme. Though, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is no case that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No such promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and directives issued by the Government after Dharwad decision. Though, there is a case that the State had made regularizations in the past of similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularizations were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some case by this Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be regularized in the service though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularization of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. The argument if accepted would also run counter to the constitutional mandate. The argument in that behalf has therefore to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 242 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, Etc. Etc. on 6 December, 1995

In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and another vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and others2, the issue discussed was of burden on the workman to establish certain facts for the purpose of seeking 2 (1996) 2 SCC 292 Page 17 of 20 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:00:01 ::: lpa.259.20190-R.doc permanency. In the case on hand, it is not even the case of the workman that the vacancy was permanent and filled by his appointment through regular selection and that giving an appointment on work charge basis was only a facade.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 289 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1   2 Next