Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
North Calcutta Co-Operative Labour ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 January, 2004 cites

National Federation Of Railway Porters ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 May, 1995

8. According to the petitioners the rejection Order is illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and has been made in violation of the Order passed, by Hon'ble Justice Kabir. When the petitioners moved the writ petition before Hon'ble Justice Kabir, in the writ petition they annexed two Judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court which were referred to by Hon'ble Justice Kabir In the judgment. The first judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been relied upon is a Judgment delivered in writ petition Nos. 507 of 1992, 115 of 1992, 82 of 1992 & 1836 of 1992 and all these writ petitions were moved under Article 32 of the Constitution of India under Cause Title "National Federation of Railway Porters v. Union of India and Ors. The Hon'ble Apex Court allowed all the above writ petitions and observed that the writ petitioners who are denied jobs as the railway parcel-porters as contractors' labourers should be absorbed permanently as regular railway parcel/porters of those stations. The members to be so appointed being limited to the quantum of work which may become available to them of perennial in nature. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that judgment also observed that the units of Railway Administration may absorb in all permanent posts only such of those railway a porters petitioners working in the concerned railway stations as contract labours who have not completed the superannuation age of 58 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when the petitioners in the writ petitions or any of them are appointed as railway parcel/porters on permanent basis, they shall be entitled to get salaries from the date of their absorption in the minimum scale of pay or wages and other service benefits which the regularly appointed railway parcel/porters are already getting.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001

23. It would be therefore ex facie clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court never wanted or desired or observed anywhere that the claims of the contractor's labourers should be rejected out-right, as would appear from the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. case (supra) also the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 125(6) of this decision did not desire rejection of the claim of the contractor's labourers out-right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 748 - Full Document

B.L. Gupta And Another vs M.C.D. on 5 September, 1997

In this context reference may be made to the judgments reported in 1998(9) SCC page 323 (B. L. Gupta and Anr. v. MCD). In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the contest of claim for regularisation that when the statutory Rule have been framed in 1978 vacancy had to be filled up only according to the said Rule. The Rules of 1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court that was the correct conclusion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 132 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal & Ors on 17 February, 1997

19. Reliance may also be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors.). In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held "The post which felt vacant before the amendment of the rules would be governed by the original rules and not by amended rules. As a necessary corollary the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the rules are required to be filled up in accordance with law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. Even a carried forward vacancy is required to be considered in accordance with law existing unless suitable relaxation is made by the Government." Therefore, in view of the aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court the railway authorities are to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the judgment and Order passed by Hon'ble Justice Kabir and in terms of the judgments and orders or the rules prevalent at that point of time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 121 - Full Document
1   2 Next