Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Textile Mills (U.C.) And Ors. vs Munnlal Nanhoo Yadav And Ors. on 22 November, 1989
9. At the same time, the stand of the NTC that any such extension even
in case of female employee must be subject to same scrutiny and rigors as
in case of male employee is perfectly legitimate. We do not intend to
enlarge the scope of the retention of the service of female employee
Gayatri Shimpi 8
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 22:01:14 :::
903-WP-3796-2021.odt
beyond what a male employee can seek consideration of. Essentially, it is
in the realm of the power of the employer, a corresponding right in the
employee for being considered, which must be based on relevant factors
such as his/her efficiency. We also take note of a decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in case of Tata Textile Mills vs. Munnilal Nanhoo
Yadav' in which similar observations have been made. We may reproduce
the same here:
Krishna Ganapat Kasar vs India United Mills No. 2, A Unit Of Ntc ... on 7 April, 2004
23. The Judgment in Krishna Ganpat Kasar (supra) is
delivered by the learned Single Judge Bench of this Court wherein the
Petitioner was held to be working in the retail shop of NTC Limited. At
the time of his superannuation, he was working in the retail shop. The
learned Single Judge, therefore, concluded that there are two different
establishments and hence, two sets of service conditions were applicable
to the employees differently in the two different establishments.
National Textile Corpn. (South Mah.) ... vs Ashok Shridhar Athavale And Others on 18 December, 1991
24. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this
Court in Ashok Shridhar Athavale (supra). We are in respectful
agreement with the said view because two sets of service conditions
cannot be prevalent in a single establishment and cannot be made
applicable to a single set of comparable employees. Per contra, if there
are two sets of employees working in two different establishments, two
sets of service conditions depending upon the nature of duties performed
by the two sets of workers in two distinct and separate establishments,
would not be an anathema. However, in the present case, the Petitioners
were brought out of the category of Sales Girls, were promoted initially
as Clerks and then as Chief Clerks and were deployed in the mill. In the
backdrop of this admitted position, the two judicial pronouncements
would not be applicable to the present cases considering the distinction
on the facts of the cases.
Ntc Ltd. (Wr) vs Shilpa S Chandankar on 11 March, 2022
2. Hence, Rule in the Second Petition. Rule is made returnable
forthwith. The Petitions are heard finally by the consent of the parties,
especially in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NTC
Ltd. (WR) Vs. Shilpa S. Chandankar & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1945 of
2022, dated 11th March, 2022, vide which, the interim relief granted to
Gayatri Shimpi 2
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 22:01:14 :::
903-WP-3796-2021.odt
the Petitioner, Shilpa S. Chandankar, was set aside and the High Court
was requested to finally decide the Writ Petition along with other
cognate Writ Petitions at the earliest.
1