Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
The plea raised on behalf of the State to contend that the
plaintiff-respondent had himself consented to be appointed on a lower post
of Chowkidar is also without merit. Every State action has to confirm and
qualify the principle of fairness and equality on the touchstone of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. Even though, the plaintiff-respondent had
conveyed a consent in writing with regard to accepting a post carrying a
lower pay scale but such consent was clearly to ensure a means of
livelihood. It would not lie in the mouth of a Welfare State to contend that a
consent given by an employee on account of the glaring disparity in the
bargaining power between an employee on the one hand and State on the
other, that such consent would stand in the way of such employee and he be
estopped from claiming the rights that have come to vest in him by virtue of
a beneficial legislation in the nature of the 1995 Act. The observations of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgement of Central Inland
Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Brojo Nath
Ganguly and another reported as AIR 1986 (S.C) 1571 would be most
relevant, which are reproduced hereunder:-
1