Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.27 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Mahatma Phule Agricultural University ... vs Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union And Ors on 24 July, 2001
13. To be seen that, in the impugned judgment, the High Court notes that, as per the law laid down by this Court, status of permanency could not be granted. In spite of this the High Court indirectly does what it could not do directly. The High Court, without granting the status of permanency, grants wages and other benefits applicable to permanent employees on the specious reasoning that inaction on the part of the Government in not creating posts amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. In so doing the High Court erroneously ignores the fact that approximately 2000 workmen had not even made a claim for permanency before it. Their claim for permanency had been rejected by the award dated 20-2- 1985. These workmen were only seeking quantification of amounts as per this award. The challenge, before the High Court, was only to the quantification of the amounts. Yet by this sweeping order the High Court grants, even to these workmen, the wages and benefits payable to other permanent workmen.
Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana (supra), reiterating the view in the case of Mahatma Phula Agricultural University and Ors. vs. Nasik Zills Sheth Kamgar Union and Ors.: (2001) 7 SCC 346; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the courts cannot direct creation of posts. It will be relevant to consider the text of Para 37 and 41 of the judgment which reads, as under:
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every state action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors. MANU/SC/0156/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 789; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. etc.
M.P. Housing Board & Anr vs Manoj Shrivastava on 24 February, 2006
MANU/SC/0417/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 2130; Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0664/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 2638; J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja, U.P. and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0932/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 3420; M.P. Housing Board and Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava MANU/SC/8059/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 3499; M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. S.C. Pandey MANU/SC/1037/2006 : (2006) 2 SCC 716; and State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Ku. Sandhya Tomar and Anr. MANU/SC/1138/2012 : JT 2013 (9) SC 139.
Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro ... vs Shri S.C. Pandey on 24 February, 2006
MANU/SC/0417/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 2130; Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0664/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 2638; J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja, U.P. and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0932/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 3420; M.P. Housing Board and Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava MANU/SC/8059/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 3499; M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. S.C. Pandey MANU/SC/1037/2006 : (2006) 2 SCC 716; and State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Ku. Sandhya Tomar and Anr. MANU/SC/1138/2012 : JT 2013 (9) SC 139.
Union Of India & Ors vs N. Hargopal & Ors on 13 April, 1987
In Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. MANU/SC/0980/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 216, a larger Bench of this Court reconsidered its earlier judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. N. Hargopal and Ors. MANU/SC/0057/1987 : AIR 1987 SC 1227, wherein it had been held that insistence of requisition through employment exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, due to the possibility of non sponsoring of names by the employment exchange, this Court held that any appointment even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting application is in violation of the said provisions of the Constitution and even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from open market as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Articles of the Constitution. The Court further observed: