Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.12 seconds)The Apprentices Act, 1961
Marathwada University vs Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan on 13 April, 1989
Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on 17.12.1953" [ See also Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan [ SCC para 28 ], Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala [ SCC para 35 ] and Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board ]."
Babu Verghese & Ors vs Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors on 16 March, 1999
Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on 17.12.1953" [ See also Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan [ SCC para 28 ], Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala [ SCC para 35 ] and Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board ]."
High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan vs P.P. Singh & Anr on 27 January, 2003
8. Recently also, the Apex Court in case of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN V. P.P.SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in 2003 SCC [L & S] 424, has observed in any view of the matter, even in a case where the initial action is illegal,the same can be ratified by a body competent thereof. The relevant observations in para-42 of aforesaid decision are reproduced as under :
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta vs The Union Of India on 2 August, 1973
In Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. Union of India, this Court held : [SCC pp.546-47, para 14]
"Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance to the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 16.12.1953 to terminate his services, it would no follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purposed to act in pursuance of the invalid resolution. Therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorised, was done on behalf of the company.
Mitrangshu Roy Choudhary & Ors vs Union Of India And Others on 15 April, 1999
7. The Apex Court in case of MITRANGSHU ROY CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER reported in [1999] 3 SCC 649 has taken a view that the appointment made without knowledge of and contrary to the policy decision taken at the Headquarters, the person had no right to appointment and therefore, cancellation of such appointment held to be not unconstitutional. In the facts of the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has dealt with identical facts wherein appointment has been given to the one apprentice which is contrary to the policy and same has been cancelled and thereafter, appointment has been given in the Group-D category, for which, employee was entitled. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court are referred as under :
1