Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Ganeswar Biswal vs Brojo Nath Ganguly And Another on 25 August, 2011 cites

Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare Soc. & ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. & ... on 24 February, 2006

8. It is an admitted that in the present case that the offer has been communicated to the petitioner and he has already received all the financial benefits admissible under the V.R.S. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HEC Voluntary Retd. Emps. Welfare Soc. & Anr. vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. & Ors. , A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1420, has held thus :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 43 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants us to address the petitioner's grievance in the light of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra). The aforesaid case is a landmark case relating to service contracts. On interpretation of the relevant service rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rule empowering the Government Corporation to terminate service of its permanent employees by giving notice or pay in lieu of notice period is opposed to public policy and violative of Article 14 and Directive Principles contained in Articles 39 (a) and 41 of the Constitution of India. Analyzing the provisions of the Contract Act and the Constitution of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the clause in the relevant Service Rule providing for termination of services of the officers by giving them three months' notice observing that, considering the inequality in the 6 bargaining power of the parties, the clause in the contract of employment was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act as opposed to public policy besides being ultra varies Article 14. The aforesaid decision and all other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to contract of employment with certain power with the employer to terminate the service of a permanent employee by giving three months' notice or following similar methods.
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

Bank Of India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar Etc on 17 December, 2002

7. A proposal is made when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent of the other to such act or abstinence (Section 2(a) of the Contract Act). Herein the O.P.G.C., by reason of the scheme, has not expressed its willingness to do or abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining assent of the employee to such act. Further the power of the O.P.G.C., as found from the scheme to accept or reject any application for voluntary retirement is absolutely discretionary. The scheme, therefore, cannot be said to be an offer, which, on the acceptance by the employee, would fructify in a concluded contract. The scheme having regard to its provisions merely constitutes an invitation to treat and not an offer. The proposal of the employee when accepted by the O.P.G.C. would constitute a promise within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Contract Act. Only then the promise becomes an enforceable contract. (See Bank of India and others vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 858).
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 287 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1