Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.39 seconds)The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983
We are clearly of the opinion that this is a case of the
nature noticed by the Supreme Court in General Manager, South
Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R. Sidhanti, (supra); A.
Janardhana v. Union of India and others; (1983) 3 SCC 601 & in
paragraph 36 of Vishal Ashok Thorat (supra). Thus, we have no
hesitation to reject the submission of the learned counsel for the ESI
Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for respondent's 7 to 37 in
OP(CAT) 51 of 2020 that we should not determine the issues relating to
seniority in the absence of all the necessary parties in the party array.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 28 April, 2006
(emphasis is
ours)
The facts in Indu Shekhar Singh (supra), as is evident are completely
different. There the employees were clearly put on notice that they would
not be entitled to count the service rendered by them prior to their
absorption. The case was determined by applying the law of election. In the
facts of the present case, the employees were informed through the terms
of absorption that "Seniority of an employee absorbed in the Corporation
will be determined as per Rules and instructions on the subject....". As
already noticed it is the specific case of the ESI Corporation that the Rules
in question are those contained in the Office Memorandum
No.22011/7/86-Estt (d) dated 3rd July, 1986 and 11th November 2010.
General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. Etc on 30 January, 1974
In the above case, this Court was considering the challenge to
the seniority list. This Court has noticed in paragraph 36 that
the appellant had not claimed seniority over any particular
individual in the background of any particular fact
controverted by that person against whom the claim is made.
The contention was that criteria adopted by the Union
Government in drawing up the seniority list are invalid and
illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government
restraining it from upsetting or quashing already drawn up
valid list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union
Government and not against any particular individual. This
Court by making the above observation has repelled the
submission that relief could not have been granted without
impleading those who were affected in the seniority list. The
claim pertaining to seniority may be laid on different
grounds. There may be cases where seniority is
claimed against individual person on specific facts, it
might be necessary to implead those persons but there
may be cases where non-impleadment of person in
seniority dispute may not be fatal................."
Mrigank Johri vs U.O.I. on 10 July, 2017
After referring to the principles laid down in Rooplal and
the Judgment in Mrigank Johri (supra) it was held that the case on
hand before the Supreme Court was one where the employees concerned
were put to notice that their absorption was deemed to be new recruitment.
It was held that having accepted the absorption after knowing the
conditions, the employee cannot be permitted thereafter turn around and
O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -42-
challenge the terms of absorption. It was also found that the absorption, in
that case, was strictly not in the public interest, which is a condition
precedent in terms of paragraph 3.4.3 of the Office Memorandum referred
to above. It may be useful to extract paragraph 17 & 18 of the judgment in
Govinda Chandra Tiria (surpa) : -
S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999
Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644 : 2000
SCC (L&S) 213]. This would also be in conformity with the
normal service jurisprudential view. However, it would be a
different position if the absorbing department clearly stipulates
a condition of giving willingness to sacrifice the seniority while
preserving all other benefits for the absorbee (which are
accepted) failing which the option was available to the
absorbee to get himself repatriated to the parent department.
The terms and conditions are categorical in their wording that
the absorbees would be "deemed to be new recruits" and the
previous service would be counted for all purposes "except
his/her seniority in the cadre". The appellant accepted this with
open eyes and never even challenged the same. Their
representations to give them the benefit of their past seniority
was also turned down and thereafter also they did not agitate
the matter in any judicial forum. The controversy was thus not
alive and it was not open for them to challenge the same after a
long lapse of period of time. In fact on the day of filing of the
OM, any prayer to set aside the terms and conditions of
absorption would have been clearly barred by time under
Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Shri Govinda Chandra Tiria vs Sibaji Charan Panda on 5 February, 2020
14. Sri. Adarsh Kumar would, however, place reliance on a recent
judgment of the Supreme Court in Govinda Chandra Tiria v. Sibaji
Charan Panda & ors; (2020) 3 SCC 803 to contend that where the
transfers are strictly not in the public interest, the transferred officers will
be placed below all those appointed regularly to the grade in question on
the date of absorption.