Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
The State Of Punjab And Others vs Rajinder Singh Etc on 7 January, 2009 cites

State Of Haryana And Anr vs Tilak Raj And Ors on 14 July, 2003

Learned counsel for the appellant-State of Punjab placed reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj's case (supra) in which their Lordships have taken a contrary view in as much as in that case the daily wagers had claimed equal pay for equal work at par with regular and permanent staff. Their Lordships held that since daily wagers hold no post and scale of pay and scale of pay is attached only to a definite post, therefore, they cannot be granted equal pay for equal work. However, the need to pay such daily wagers the minimum wages was recognised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 434 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992

In the present case, keeping in view the aforestated legal LPA NO. 337 of 2003 in CWP No.1536 of 1988 10 principles, it is incumbent upon the respondents-petitioners to discharge the burden of establishing wholesale equivalence between them and their regular counterparts in terms of (i) qualification, (ii) mode of recruitment, (iii) discharge of duties; and (iv) degree of responsibility. On examining the pleadings we find that the respondents-petitioners have failed to discharge that onerous burden which would entitle them to invoke the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Admittedly they have been getting the minimum wages. During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal their services have been even regularised in view of the policy framed in view of Piara Singh's case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1473 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development ... on 15 December, 1989

In Bhagwati Prasad's case (supra), the claim of daily rated workers for grant of equal pay for equal work at par with regular employees was examined. It was held that the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with persons appointed on regular basis to the similar posts and discharging similar duties. It was further held that they were entitled to the scale of pay and other allowances revised from time to time for the said posts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Workman, Indian Drugs & ... on 16 November, 2006

LPA NO. 337 of 2003 in CWP No.1536 of 1988 9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision rendered in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Workmen Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals (2007) 1 SCC 408 held that no direction can be given that a daily wage employee should be paid salary of a regular employee. If an employee is not appointed against a sanctioned post as per rules, he is not entitled to any scale of pay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 613 - M Katju - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Charanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc on 5 October, 2005

In Charanjit Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the Full Bench decision of this court in Vijay Sharma's case (supra) in the case of daily wagers. It was held that the High Court had blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors for arriving at the conclusion that the daily wagers were entitled to the minimum of the pay scale granted to their counterparts and as such matters were remitted back to the High Court to examine each case on the basis of material placed before it. In para 19 of the said judgement, it was held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not mechanical application in every case. Equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 386 - S N Variava - Full Document
1   2 Next