Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)
Managing Committee, Shri Mahaveer ... vs Smt Beena Jain W/O Shri Jitendra Kumar ... on 21 February, 2025 cites

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

"20. Evidently, these Rules were framed to enable the absorption of employees and teachers of non- government aided institutions. What is relevant for the purposes of this case is that by Rule 5(viii), carry (Downloaded on 21/02/2025 at 11:56:01 PM) (30 of 37) [CW-16605/2019] forward of existing privilege leave is denied; likewise, the period of service in aided institutions is not to be reckoned for the purpose of gratuity Under Rule 5(ix). Every employee had to furnish an undertaking in the prescribed form to accept the terms and conditions. Ordinarily no public employer can be faulted in imposing pre-conditions before it recruits an employee. However, such conditions cannot be arbitrary, or so onerous as to be unconscionable. In the opinion of this Court, the condition in Clause (viii) of Rule 5 i.e., carry forward of balance privilege leave, is barred and requiring employees to seek encashment from their previous employer, i.e., aided institutions, is an arbitrary and unconscionable condition, which cannot be enforced. Speaking that such conditions are enforceable, this Court, recently, in Pani Ram v. Union of India and Ors. 9 after quoting the observations in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr.10 held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document
1   2 Next