Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Section 10 in The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
In State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Kesari and others, (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Division Bench of the Honble Supreme Court has held that the object behind the direction in para 53 of Umadevis case (supra) is two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of Courts or Tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevis case (supra) was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.
Secretary, H.S.E.B vs Suresh & Ors Etc. Etc on 30 March, 1999
15. The decisions in Union of India and others v. Subir Mukharji and others (supra), Secretary, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh & others, etc. etc.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court has held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment do not confer any right on the appointees and Courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re-engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme, and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. It has also been held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily- wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Union Of India & Ors vs Subir Mukharji & Ors on 29 April, 1998
(supra), and J.Elangovan & others v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others (supra), cited by Mr.Hari Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, besides being distinguishable on facts, are not helpful to the case of the applicants. The O.M. dated 23.1.2013, issued by the Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, which has been relied on by Mr.Hari Prakash, also does not support the claims of the applicants.