Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.01 seconds)
Mohammad Mustaquim Alias Mustkeem vs North Eastern Railway on 18 July, 2023 cites

Anil Bhargava & Hari Ram & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 8 July, 2009

17. It would be in the fitness of things to straightway refer to the judgment dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 643 of 2015 titled Hari Ram & Ors Vs. Union of India which has been referred to by the applicant counsel in support of his arguments. A perusal of the said judgments reveals that it dealt with similar facts and circumstances as are being dealt with in the instant case of the applicant. For the sake of clarity, the operative portion of the above judgment is reproduced herein below:
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - S Khanna - Full Document

Shri Jai Karan Singh Chauhan Bal Kishan ... vs Delhi Develpment Authority & Ors Union ... on 14 February, 2019

11. At this stage, we may refer to the decision in Om Prakash & Karan Singh Vs. Union of India in O.A. No. 107/2009, decided on 21.01.2011. In that case as well, the issue of classification of the 12 | P a g e petitioners' employment has been raised. The petitioner had defended the classification of the applicants Om Prakash & Karan Singh who were also working as Gatemen, as being employed 'essentially intermittent' employment. The Tribunal, however, found in favour of the applicants and in the operative part, held as follows:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 223 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Rohtas Industries Ltd. & Anr vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union And Ors on 18 December, 1975

18. Furthermore, the case of Om Prakash (supra) and Rohtas (supra) has also been discussed in the judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W P (C) No. 5510 of 2014 titled Union of India Vs. Shri Dharambir and others wherein the prayer of the respondents was dismissed and further, the Hon'ble Court also dealt with and recorded the exact position as regards to the grant of overtime allowances to the similarly situated applicants. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 195 - V R Iyer - Full Document

K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997

14. OA No. 107/2009 (supra), OA No.3378/2011 (supra) and W. P. (C ) No.7164/2011 (supra) all pertained to payment of overtime allowance whereas the applicants are seeking reclassification of Noli Station from "essentially intermittent" to "continuous". Therefore, these orders/judgments do not help the applicants in any manner as they are not applicable at all. Secondly, as the respondents have pointed out, the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, and specifically Rules 3 and 4 provide for channels of appeal. In case an employee is dissatisfied with the declaration of the employment of the Railway servant as "intensive" or "essentially intermittent" the same can be challenged under Rule 3 by filing an appeal before the Regional Labour Commissioner within 90 days. If he is aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Labour Commissioner then, under Rule 4, he may prefer an appeal to the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour within a further period of 90 days. The applicants have not done so and approached this Tribunal directly. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents has correctly pointed out that there is enormous delay on the part of the applicants in filing this OA, which is not adequately explained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 483 - Full Document

Sant Lal Gupta vs The Modern Coop. Group Housing Society ... on 6 January, 2022

9. Learned counsel for the applicant further refers to the judgment dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Apex Court in case titled Sant Lal Gupta and others Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 held that coordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - Full Document
1   2 Next