Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.50 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, Etc. Etc. on 6 December, 1995
In above background of the facts, certain observations made by the Apex Court in case of Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr. v. Jagannath Maruti Konthare, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2898 are relevant with the facts of the case, and therefore, observations made in Paras 12, 22 and 23, 28 and 29 are quoted as under :-
Article 38 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Surinder Singh And Anr. vs Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D. And Ors. on 17 January, 1986
This exercise should be done by the State Government within a period of six months. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that those who are not regularized and are continuously working for 10 or more years with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, they should be paid minimum pay-scale as admissible to an incumbent regularized on similar post doing similar work instead of minimum wages as prescribed by the Government. The dispute thus is, whether such workers to be paid minimum daily wage as Government prescribes as per the scheme or pay them the minimum pay-scale admissible to such regularized worker without increment and other benefit. This Court in one set of decisions have said to regularize them in one block and pay them the same minimum pay-scale as admissible to a regular employee as in; Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D., 1986 (1) SCC 639 : AIR 1986 SC 584 : 1986 Lab.
U.P. Income-Tax Department Contingent ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 December, 1987
State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Devinder Singh And Ors. on 21 July, 1997
SCC 658 : AIR 1988 SC 517 : 1988 Lab.IC 958, State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh, 1998 (9) SCC 595, Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kandhare, 1996 (2) SCC 293 : 1996 AIR SCW 735 : AIR 1996 SC 2898 : 1996 Lab.IC 967, and in other cases to absorb in a phased manner under a scheme which depends on the facts of each case.
Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State Of H.P on 19 April, 1994
In Mool Raj Upadhayaya v. State of H.P., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, (supra), this Court approved a scheme under which the daily-wage workers whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service was to be paid daily wage at the rates prescribed by the Government of H.P. from time to time for daily-wage employees falling under Class III and IV till they are appointed regularly. Strong reliance is placed on behalf of the University on this case and also, looking to the fact that it has not impressive source of its own, being an Agricultural University, depending on the State fund, we hold they should be paid minimum wages as prescribed by the Government from time to time as proposed under the scheme. We approve both Clauses 2 and 3 on the facts and circumstances of this case. In fact, in seeking minimum pay-scale to such daily-rated workers as admissible to a regular employee is based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It is pertinent to refer, in this case the observations of the High Court :