Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.86 seconds)
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak & Anr. on 26 November, 1993 cites

Dhirendra Chamoli And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 1985

In Dhirendra Chamoli's case (Supra) the Supreme Court has observed that as long as it is accepted that the daily rated workers are performing the same duties as their regular counterparts in the same grade it makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. Whether the appointment is for a temporary period or that the same is temporary becomes irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of duties and functions discharged and work done is similar and doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work is attracted. In any event all these workmen are in unskilled category. They only require physical strength and capacity to work. Thus, the status of these casual employees is immaterial so long as they perform the same duties as their regular counter-parts. In the present case, most of the workmen before us have worked as daily rated casual workers for more than 12 to 15 years and the Corporation itself has given them equal pay as their regular counter-parts from a later date. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to now contend that the nature of appointment of the respondent being different they are not entitled to equal pay as their regular counter-parts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 201 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Daily Rated Casual Labour ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 October, 1987

"Equal Pay for Equal Work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles of the State Policy as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution "Equal Pay for Equal Work" has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equal Pay for Equal Work and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by this Court as constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern. It has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity to all and Equal Pay for Equal Work for similarly placed employees of the State. This Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of Equal Pay for Equal Work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice in a number of decision. See : Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P., Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief CPWD, R. D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, Jaipal v. State of Haryana, Dharwad District P. W. D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka. Therefore, the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of a State is applicable to its full vigour".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 268 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Surinder Singh And Anr. vs Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D. And Ors. on 17 January, 1986

23. We are also not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court could not have granted other benefits and allowances like DA etc., to the workmen. Remuneration means the basic wage or salary and any additional emolument whatsoever payable either in case or in kind. The Supreme Court itself in Dhirendra Chamoli's case (Supra) and in Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-chief, CPWD, has granted not only salary to the daily rated casual workers equal to their regular counter-parts but, also the allowances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 165 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next