Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.54 seconds)

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016

1.3. Learned counsel for the review applicants argued that the review applicants are still being denied the increment in salary at par with the other similarly situated employees. Placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, she further argued that Equal Pay for Equal Work is a right based on Article 14 and the review applicants are entitled to increments and the arrears as prayed for in M.A No.2891/2021.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 2405 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

1.6. Learned counsel for the review applicants further argued that it is a settled law that even in the case of contractual appointment Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution has to be followed and the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in considering that the applicants herein are only being employed through the Contractual Policy by the respondents and the terms and conditions of the contract will be strictly applicable to them. This finding is contrary to Para 89 of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Brojo Nath Ganguly AIR (1986) SC 1571. which was relied upon wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that owing to unequal bargaining power, the court is required to ascertain whether a contractual term or a contract is unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. 1.7.
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document
1   2 3 Next