Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.90 seconds)
State Of Gujarat And Ors. vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar on 31 January, 2001 cites

Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978

3. The learned single Judge, without examining the nature of duty discharged by the respondent as well as the nature of job of the organisation in which the respondent was recruited, following the judgment of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa 1978(2) SCR 213, came to the conclusion that the impugned order of termination is vitiated for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the order of termination was set aside against which judgment the State had moved in appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 985 - M H Beg - Full Document

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

6. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have failed to carefully examine the ratio of this Court's judgment in the Jagannath Maruti Kondhare's case (supra), in as much as in para 15 of the said judgment, the Court has quoted the assertions made in the affidavit of the Chief Conservator of Forests and then in para 17, the Court held that the scheme undertaken cannot be regarded as a part of the sovereign function of the State. We are afraid that the aforesaid decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case where there has not been any assertion of fact by the petitioner in establishing that the establishment to which he had been appointed is "an industry". In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench committed serious error of law in holding that to the appointment in question, the provisions of the Act apply. We would accordingly set aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as that of the learned single Judge and hold that the writ petition would stand dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 289 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1