Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.08 seconds)
T. Cajee vs U. Jormanik Siem And Another on 20 September, 1960 cites

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

In this case, the District Council when it confirmed the appointment of the respondent laid down certain terms by virtue of its power of administration and so far as the respondent is concerned those terms would govern the relations between him and the District Council in respect of all matters including his removal from the office of Siem. As pointed out by this Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India (1), the conditions of service of a Government servant appointed to a post are regulated by the terms of the (1) [1958] S.C.R. 828,841.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

The Management Of Hotel Imperial, New ... vs Hotel Workers' Union on 21 May, 1959

But r. 30(a) lays down that where immediate action in respect of any of the excepted matters is necessary, the Executive Committee of a District Council other than that of the Mikhir Hills or the North Cachar Hills, may take such action thereon as the emergency appears to it to require ; but every such case shall have to be laid before the District Council at its next session. The order of July 7, 1959, shows that the Executive Committee took action under r. 30(a) as it considered the matter to be one of emergency. It is not for the courts to go into the question whether there was emergency or not with respect to excepted matters and in the circumstances 767 the action taken by the Executive Committee cannot be challenged on the ground that it is beyond its power. The last point that has been urged is that in any case the Executive Committee could not suspend the respondent, and reliance in this connection is placed on The Management of Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers' Union This Court held in that case as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 349 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1