Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.19 seconds)
The Superintending Engineer vs P.Kothandam on 16 October, 2015 cites

State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005

"16.......The learned counsel also referred to the several rulings of the Supreme Court and in particular, to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Secretary of State of Karnataka -Vs- Umadevi reported in (2006)4 SCC page 1 and the decision of the Surpeme Court in Uma Rani v Registrar Cooperative Societies reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 and State of UP v Neeraj Awasthi (2006) 1 SCC 667. The thrust of his arguments was that even in the teeth of Industrial Regulations (Conferment and Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, persons who had put in 480 days of continuous work could not be regularised if the initial employment was illegal and violative of Regulations; the Act would not in such a case be applicable at all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 906 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sh. Bakshish Singh Dhaliwal Thru Lrs. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 20 March, 2007

22.......This situation has been substantially considered in the decision of the learned single judge in Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Board Distribution Circle, Vellore -Vs- Inspector of Labour reported in 2004 (3) LLN 598. This decision itself is the subject of challenge before us but the board has, by entering in to the settlement which is in challenge, has literally made the appeals infructuous by giving in to the claims of the workmen and endorsing the correctness of the judgment. The actual status of several of the workmen had been dealt with in the judgment of the learned Judge in paragraphs 33 and 34 that adverted to the factual findings rendered by the Labour Inspector that all those workmen so called as contract labourers were actually appointed directly by the board and therefore, the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment and Permanent Status of Workmen) Act were clearly attracted. The Supreme Court has also held that creation of new posts, even if such exercise reduces chances of promotion to the existing cadre, could not be objected (Bakshish Singh Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1985 SC 1272:1985 Supplement I SCC 116.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Madan Mohan Pathak vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 21 February, 1978

In this context, reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Pathak vs. UOI, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 50, which was followed in Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 190, observing that a Writ of Mandamus is required to be obeyed unless a judgment is overruled or a legislation by way of validating statue is brought into force. With the above observations and findings, all the Writ Petitions filed by the Board challenging the orders of Inspectors of Labour, were dismissed by common order dated 27.03.2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 133 - M H Beg - Full Document

Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector And Anr on 2 August, 2005

8. The Board preferred Writ Appeals, which were heard by the First Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party [T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J], in W.A.Nos.1340 & 1341 of 2012, while dismissing the appeals by judgment dated 10.07.2012, it was pointed out that though the award was passed in favour of the workmen during 2005-07, the appellant Board kept idle and challenged the award in 2012 by filing the Writ Petitions and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly pre-faced by stating that the Writ Petitions are a clear manifestation of abuse of process of Court indulged by a subordinate officer of the appellant. A contention was raised on behalf of the appellant that though the awards were passed during 2005-07, there was settlement with various workers Union during 2007 and the award passed is deemed to have merged with the settlement. This contention was also rejected after perusing the settlement entered in 2007, as there was no specific reference to the award passed in favour of the respondent, while entering into the settlement. The decision in W.A.No.1302 of 2003, dated 24.10.2008, relied on by the appellant was held to be not applicable, since in those cases, there was a memorandum of settlement, dated 10.08.2007, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was subject matter of challenge and the other category of cases, were filed questioning the validity of B.P.Nos.36 & 37, dated 29.10.2005, prescribing the modes of appointment of Mazdoor through their absorption and the third category where enforcement of awards or orders of Labour Inspector was sought for and the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the settlements under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act and challenge to the Board Proceedings by judgment dated 24.10.2008. The First Bench noted that those Writ Petitions were filed in 2005 and in the case on hand, the Board filed the Writ Petitions after five to seven years of awards and there was no explanation for the inordinate delay. Ultimately, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was confirmed and the Writ Petitions were dismissed by judgment dated 10.07.2007. Following the said decision, another batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.1342 to 1363 of 2012 and W.A.Nos.1390 of 2012 etc batch, were dismissed by the First Bench by judgment dated 11.07.2012. The Board preferred Special Leave Petitions against the judgment, dated 10.07.2012 in W.As.No.1340 & 1341 of 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 08.04.2013, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the Board, an observation was made that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions will not preclude the Board to apply to this Court for review concerning the matters, where the Board alleged that the awards are forged. This is how these Review Petitions have been filed and after the delay in filing was condoned, they were heard at length.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003

10. Further, by referring to the signature of one Mr.George Edington, Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, it is stated that the signature is different from each of the awards, when compared with the admitted signatures. It is further submitted that in this regard criminal complaint has also been lodged and a case has been registered in Crime No.26 of 2015 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Cuddalore against 960 persons, who are covered under the 22 awards and four Trade Unions. Further, it is submitted that in two of the awards, dated 15.06.2007 and 08.06.2007, number of the claimants shown in the award exceeded the number of actual claimants. Thus, it is the submission that there is a misrepresentation, ambiguity and fabrication of records on the part of the workmen. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & ors., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319, stating that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 485 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Fakir Charan Sethi (Dead Through Lrs) & ... on 9 October, 2014

Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr., vs. Fakir Charan Sethi reported in (2015) 1 SCC 466, for the proposition that the slightest of doubt or even prima facie proof of fraud, the matter must be thoroughly investigated by the Court to arrive at the truth. On the above submission, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks for review of the order passed by the Division Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

15. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the workmen sought to demonstrate before us that the awards are validly passed and the present plea that the awards themselves are forged was never the stand taken by the Board earlier nor in this Review Applications and it is wholly untenable. Further by referring to certain notings in the file of the Superintending Engineer, it is submitted that the awards were brought to the notice as early as 2008. It is further submitted the allegation that the signature of Mr.George Edington, Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, was forged is a false plea, since in the enquiry conducted, it was clearly established that Mr.George Edington, had signed in the note sheets and the orders were also passed and signed by him. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant has come forward with a false case and the applications are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd., vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 659 - Full Document

Oswal Fats And Oils Ltd vs Addl.Commnr.,Bareilly Division & Ors on 1 April, 2010

15. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the workmen sought to demonstrate before us that the awards are validly passed and the present plea that the awards themselves are forged was never the stand taken by the Board earlier nor in this Review Applications and it is wholly untenable. Further by referring to certain notings in the file of the Superintending Engineer, it is submitted that the awards were brought to the notice as early as 2008. It is further submitted the allegation that the signature of Mr.George Edington, Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, was forged is a false plea, since in the enquiry conducted, it was clearly established that Mr.George Edington, had signed in the note sheets and the orders were also passed and signed by him. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant has come forward with a false case and the applications are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd., vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 69 - Cited by 143 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 Next