Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.00 seconds)Bal Kishan vs Delhi Administration And Anr. on 6 October, 1989
1.In Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi Administration and another reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 100, in paragraph 10, it is decided thus:-
National Federation Of Railway Porters ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 May, 1995
19. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner gained momentum, while referring to the dictum laid down in the above said rulings and he submitted that in the matter of absorption, non-consideration of seniority of the workmen is highly detrimental and if seniority was not considered, then the juniors to the particular workmen could become seniors in rank, who would consequently be benefited with all the service conditions, by means of which, the rights of the workmen would get affected. It is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court also that promotion or confirmation of a junior would have demoralising effect in service, apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
I.T.C. Ltd. Workers Welfare ... vs The Management Of I.T.C. Ltd. & Others on 29 January, 2002
In I.T.C.Ltd Workers Association Vs. The Man of I.T.C.Ltd reported in J.T.2002 (1) Supreme Court 511, the Apex Court has formulated guidelines to the effect that in exceptional circumstances alone the settlement can be ignored and the question of non-inclusion of particular union will not form base for striking down the settlement. The operative portion of the said Judgment goes thus:-
Transmission Corpn., A.P. Ltd. & Ors vs P. Ramachandra Rao & Anr on 17 April, 2006
24. Learned counsel for the first respondent also placed much reliance upon the decision reported in J.T.2006(4) Supreme Court 593, Transmission Corpn., A.P.Ltd & Others Vs. P.Ramachandra Rao & Another, wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:-
Herbertsons Limited vs Workmen Of Herbertsons Limited And Ors on 3 November, 1976
16. As observed by this Court in Tata Engineerings case (supra) a settlement cannot weigh in any golden scales and the question whether it is just and fair has to be answered on the basis of principles different from those which comes into play when an industrial dispute is under adjudication. If the settlement had been arrived at by a vast majority of concerned workers with their eyes open and was also accepted by them in its totality, it must be presumed to be just and fair and not liable to be ignored while deciding the reference made under the Act merely because a small number of workers were not parties to it or refused to accept it or because the Tribunal was on the opinion that the workers deserved marginally higher emoluments than they themselves though they did. The decision in Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Workmen (1977 (2) SCR 15) was followed.
Ashok Gulati & Ors vs B.S. Jain & Ors on 17 December, 1986
22. According to the accepted canons of service jurisprudence, seniority of a person appointed must be reckoned from the date he becomes a member of the service. The date from which seniority is to be reckoned may be laid down by rules or instructions (a) on the basis of the date of appointment (b) on the basis of confirmation (c) on the basis of regularisation of service (d) on the basis of length of service or, (e) on any other reasonable basis.
The category on any of the reasonable basis, can be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Ansusekhar Guin And Ors. on 29 November, 1988
35. It is well settled proposition that in the absence of any rule, the length of continuous officiation is a principle of determining the seniority. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ansusekhar Guin and others reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court Batch 377 = 1989 SCC (LS) 2004 has laid down that continuous length of service for fixation of seniority is a well settled principle, in the absence of any prescribed rule for determination of seniority.