Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.48 seconds)
Shri Sanjeet Kumar vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 22 April, 2014 cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

4. The learned counsel for the respondents contests the very nature of the applicants employment with the respondents. As averred in the counter-reply, the learned counsel states that the applicant is simply a substitute piecemeal safai karamchari. He has been working as a substitute daily wager and is not governed under Discipline and Control Rules of the MCD. The applicant had misbehaved at the work place, intimidated the superiors and forcibly marked presence of two safai karamcharies in the attendance register on 07.06.2010. When this incident was reported to the higher authorities it was decided to terminate the services of the applicant. The applicant had also filed a mercy appeal, which was examined at the appropriate level and was rejected. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Chairman-cum-MD, TNCS Corporation Ltd. & another v. K. Meerabai, 20060I-LLJ, 826, State of Tamil Nadu v. K.V. Perumal and others, 1996 (2) LLN 883, G. Anandam v. Tamil nadu Electricity Board and another, 1996 (2) LLN 1180, South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra and others, 2006-I-LLJ 1087 and Karnataka Band Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao, 2006-I-LLJ.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1670 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

South Bengal State Transport Corpn vs Swapan Kumar Mitra And Ors on 3 February, 2006

4. The learned counsel for the respondents contests the very nature of the applicants employment with the respondents. As averred in the counter-reply, the learned counsel states that the applicant is simply a substitute piecemeal safai karamchari. He has been working as a substitute daily wager and is not governed under Discipline and Control Rules of the MCD. The applicant had misbehaved at the work place, intimidated the superiors and forcibly marked presence of two safai karamcharies in the attendance register on 07.06.2010. When this incident was reported to the higher authorities it was decided to terminate the services of the applicant. The applicant had also filed a mercy appeal, which was examined at the appropriate level and was rejected. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Chairman-cum-MD, TNCS Corporation Ltd. & another v. K. Meerabai, 20060I-LLJ, 826, State of Tamil Nadu v. K.V. Perumal and others, 1996 (2) LLN 883, G. Anandam v. Tamil nadu Electricity Board and another, 1996 (2) LLN 1180, South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra and others, 2006-I-LLJ 1087 and Karnataka Band Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao, 2006-I-LLJ.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 114 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

M.P. Anandam Pillai (Deceased) And A. ... vs The State Represented By Its Secretary ... on 13 August, 2004

4. The learned counsel for the respondents contests the very nature of the applicants employment with the respondents. As averred in the counter-reply, the learned counsel states that the applicant is simply a substitute piecemeal safai karamchari. He has been working as a substitute daily wager and is not governed under Discipline and Control Rules of the MCD. The applicant had misbehaved at the work place, intimidated the superiors and forcibly marked presence of two safai karamcharies in the attendance register on 07.06.2010. When this incident was reported to the higher authorities it was decided to terminate the services of the applicant. The applicant had also filed a mercy appeal, which was examined at the appropriate level and was rejected. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Chairman-cum-MD, TNCS Corporation Ltd. & another v. K. Meerabai, 20060I-LLJ, 826, State of Tamil Nadu v. K.V. Perumal and others, 1996 (2) LLN 883, G. Anandam v. Tamil nadu Electricity Board and another, 1996 (2) LLN 1180, South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra and others, 2006-I-LLJ 1087 and Karnataka Band Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao, 2006-I-LLJ.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1