Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.80 seconds)The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 23 February, 1990
"We have been told that the nature of work is essentially slum clearance and the project is financed partly by the State of Uttar Pradesh and partly by World Bank. The petitioners have alleged that they are employed on dally rate basis and on an average receive Rs. 1.000 per month. It is stated that no payment is made for the holidays and they are not entitled to any other benefits. Reliance has been placed on this Court's decision in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Engineers
and some other decisions including the one in the case of Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others v. State of Karnataka and others. 1990 (2) SCC 396.
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
"There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department, therefore, the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 36(d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the
Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. and Surendra Singh v. Engineer in Chief, CPWD, in view of these authorities it is too late in the date to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee."
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 1961
In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (supra) this Court has occasion to explain the observations in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India (supra).
Dhirendra Chamoli And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 1985
"There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department, therefore, the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 36(d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the
Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. and Surendra Singh v. Engineer in Chief, CPWD, in view of these authorities it is too late in the date to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee."
State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988
In the case of State of U. P. v. J.P. Chaurasta, 1989 SCC (L & S) 71. Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that equal pay for equal work for both men and women has been accepted as a Constitutional goal, capable of being achieved through Constitutional remedies.
Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter And Others vs Union Of India And Another on 15 March, 1989
In the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter v. Union of India, 1989 SCC (L & S) 348. Hon'ble Supreme Court again reemphasized and reiterated its view that equal pay for equal work is the necessary ingredients of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ram Kishan And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 February, 1991
In the case of Shri Ram Kishan and others v. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 853 of 1990, with W.P. (Civil) Nos. 1060 of 1990, 1070 of 1990 and 80 of 1991, which were filed by Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers working under Ghaziabad Development Authority who were paid Rs. 60 and 40 per day and were not paid the amount during holidays, on February 21, 1991 Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the writ petitions by following directions :
Sandeep Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 17 September, 1991
In the matter of Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others.