Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Managing Director vs Smt. Savitri Singh on 22 August, 2019 cites

M.P. State Electricity Board(Now Known ... vs Bijali Karmchari Sangh Thru. Devilal on 28 September, 2015

"(i) Whether the decision in the case of M.P. State Electricity Board (now known as M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.) Indore vs. Bijli Karmchari Sangh, W.A. No.334/2015 wherein it has been held that the employees of the society are entitled to pension in view of the decision rendered in the case of Panchraj Tiwari vs. M.P. State Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, lays down the correct law ?
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Panchraj Tiwari vs M.P.State Electricity Board & Ors on 4 March, 2014

"(i) Whether the decision in the case of M.P. State Electricity Board (now known as M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.) Indore vs. Bijli Karmchari Sangh, W.A. No.334/2015 wherein it has been held that the employees of the society are entitled to pension in view of the decision rendered in the case of Panchraj Tiwari vs. M.P. State Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, lays down the correct law ?
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Heavy Electricals Employees' Union And ... vs State Industrial Court, M.P., Indore ... on 28 February, 1975

However, the Writ Appeal No.137/2012 (M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Brajendra Singh Kushwah) filed by the Board was allowed setting aside the direction to grant parity in pay and the common judgment of the Indore Bench passed in W.P. No.1962/2010, dated 13-9-2011 and W.P. No.12029/2010 (Electricity Supply Employees Union vs. State of M.P.), whereby benefits of the Pay Regulations 2001 were conferred to the absorbed employees of Manawar RECS, was distinguished.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Brajendra Singh Kushwah vs M.P.State Electricity Board . on 27 April, 2015

13. This Court in the light of the judgment delivered in the earlier round of litigation and also keeping in view the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Kushwaha (supra) and order passed in the case of Panchraj Tiwari (supra), is of the considered opinion that once the employees have absorbed in the services of the M.P. State Electricity Board they are the 27 employees of M.P. State Electricity Board for all purposes. An instrumentality of the State cannot be permitted to discriminate between its employees by treating the absorbed employees as a different class of employees. There is one only class of employees, i.e. employees working in the M.P. State Electricity Board. There is a pensionary scheme for the employees of the M.P. State Electricity Board and, therefore, the members of the petitioner - Union, meaning thereby, all the employees absorbed in the services of M.P. State Electricity Board are certainly entitled for the benefits of pension scheme and other fringe benefits for which the employees of M.P. State Electricity Board are entitled.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Rajendra Singh Kushwah on 14 February, 2017

However, the Writ Appeal No.137/2012 (M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Brajendra Singh Kushwah) filed by the Board was allowed setting aside the direction to grant parity in pay and the common judgment of the Indore Bench passed in W.P. No.1962/2010, dated 13-9-2011 and W.P. No.12029/2010 (Electricity Supply Employees Union vs. State of M.P.), whereby benefits of the Pay Regulations 2001 were conferred to the absorbed employees of Manawar RECS, was distinguished.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now Khoday ... vs Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare ... on 14 August, 2017

The same view has been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited (now known as Khoday 36 India Limited) and others vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal (under liquidation) represented by the liquidator, (2019) 4 SCC 376 wherein it is held that dismissal of a special leave petition in limine is not an expression of opinion by the Court on the merits of the case or affirmation of law laid down in the said judgement.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 45 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next