Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997
However, in the case of Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (supra) and in the case of Om Kumar (supra) the principle of 'proportionality' vis-a-vis the administrative action has been taken into consideration and in the latter it has been laid down that when the administrative action is attacked as discriminatory under Article 14, the principle of primary review can be followed by the Court by applying proportionality. However, when the administrative action is questioned as arbitrary under Article 14, the principle of secondary review based on Wednesbury principle has to be applied. Thus, the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court bifurcate the administrative action in two, namely : (1) violative of fundamental rights and (2) violative of rights which are not fundamental. They lay down that when fundamental freedom is involved and the decision of the administrator adversely affects the fundamental right, the principle of proportionality can be applied and the Court may assume primary role.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
31. We cannot accept the extreme contentions advanced on behalf of the workmen and the employers. We are aware that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest of employees. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a welfare legislation, Courts should adopt, what is described as a beneficent rule of construction. If two constructions are reasonably possible to be, placed on the Section, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the Act and is more beneficial to the employees, has to be preferred. Another principle to be borne in mind is that the Act in question which intends to improve and safeguard the service conditions of an employee, demands an interpretation liberal enough to achieve the Legislative purpose. But we should not also lose sight of another canon of interpretation that a statute or for the matter of that even a particular Section, has to be interpreted according to its plain words and without doing violence to the language used by the legislature. Another aspect to be borne in mind will be that there has been a long chain of decisions of this Court, referred to exhaustively earlier, laying down various principles in relation to adjudication of disputes by Industrial Courts arising out of orders of discharge or dismissal. Therefore, it will have to be found from the words of the Section whether it has altered the entire law, as laid down by the decisions, and if so, whether there is a clear expression of that intention in the language of the Section.
Mohini K. vs General Manager, Syndicate Bank, ... on 1 July, 1994
6.1. The second decision relied on by Mr. Thakker in support of his aforesaid contention is of learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case between Mohini v. General Manager, Syndicate Bank reported in 1995 (1) LLJ 351. It has been held in that decision as under :
Sanchalakshri & Anr vs Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta & Anr on 18 November, 1998
The issue in controversy has been adequately dealt with by the decisions that have been cited by Mr. Mehta, Mr. Mehta has also relied on two decisions of the Apex Court delivered in the case of Sanchalakshri v. Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 245 and in the case of Shriji Vidyalaya v. Patel Anilkumar Lallubhai, reported in 1998 (9) SCC 561. Both these decisions are in respect of a dispute which had arisen under the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. The scope of the powers of the Tribunal constituted under the said Act while reviewing of the orders passed by the Management in disciplinary matters and to give its own findings and to substitute the punishment has been considered. The provisions of the powers of the Tribunal set up under the said Act are para materia with the provisions conferred upon the Labour Courts and Tribunals under Section 11A of the Act.
Shriji Vidyalaya And Anr. vs Patel Anil Kumar Lallubhai And Anr. on 20 August, 1997
The issue in controversy has been adequately dealt with by the decisions that have been cited by Mr. Mehta, Mr. Mehta has also relied on two decisions of the Apex Court delivered in the case of Sanchalakshri v. Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 245 and in the case of Shriji Vidyalaya v. Patel Anilkumar Lallubhai, reported in 1998 (9) SCC 561. Both these decisions are in respect of a dispute which had arisen under the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. The scope of the powers of the Tribunal constituted under the said Act while reviewing of the orders passed by the Management in disciplinary matters and to give its own findings and to substitute the punishment has been considered. The provisions of the powers of the Tribunal set up under the said Act are para materia with the provisions conferred upon the Labour Courts and Tribunals under Section 11A of the Act.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
In both these
decisions the Apex Court has considered the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India reported in JT 1995 (8) SC 65 and has arrived at the same conclusion.