Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.70 seconds)
The State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav on 31 July, 2008 cites

M.P. Housing Board & Anr vs Manoj Shrivastava on 24 February, 2006

ig The said decision applies with all force to the facts of this case. In Mahendra L. Jain this court has categorically held that the Standing Orders governing the terms and conditions of service must be read subject to the constitutional and statutory limitations for the purpose of appointment both as a permanent employee or as a temporary employee. An appointment to the post of a temporary employee can be made where the work is essentially of temporary nature. In a case where there existed a vacancy, the same was required to be filled up by resorting to the procedures known to law i.e. Upon fulfilling the constitutional requirements as also the provisions contained in the 1976 Regulations. No finding of fact has been arrived at that before the respondent was appointed, the constitutional and statutory requirements were complied with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 215 - Full Document

U.P. State Electricity Board vs Pooran Chandra Pandey & Others on 9 October, 2007

15. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Oandey & ors reported in JT 2007(12) SC 179. In the facts of the said case employees of Co-operative Electric Supply Society were absorbed in the services of the Electricity Board on a take over on 3-4- 1997. The Board had before taking over, decided to regularise ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:38:40 ::: 20 the services of its employees on daily wages working before 4-5- 1990. Whereas the employees of the Co-operative Electric Supply Society were not regularised in service. Hence they filed petitions being Daily wage employees working in the society from before 4- 5-1990 claiming parity with the daily wagers working with Electricity Board department. In the above facts the court after distinguishing the facts in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Umadevi, has dismissed the appeal filed by the El;ectricity Board. The question involved in the said case was touching the issue of discrimination between two similarly situated sets of employees and in the facts of the case, the court has distinguished the same from Umadevi's case. This judgment does not advance the case of the respondent any further.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 487 - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. And Ors. Etc. ... vs Mr. Avinash D. Kamble And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 3 March, 2008

16. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Nagpur Vs. Avinash D. Kamble & anr. Reported in 2008 II CLR 265. The Division Bench in the said judgment was considering a batch of petitions involving a dispute between the private employer and its workers under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971. In that case the Court granted the benefit to the workmen under the Model Standing Orders. The said judgment has no relevance and applicability to the facts of the present case. Articles 14, 16 and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:38:40 ::: 21 the rules framed thereunder Article 309 apply to public employment only and has no application to private employment. The State within the meaning of Article 12 is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16, and is obliged to afford equal opportunity to all, which is not a requirement and obligation in the private employment. In the present appeals we are dealing with issues in Public Employment, for which there exists a constitutional scheme which is entirely different from private employment. Thus the view expressed by the Division Bench in the said judgment has no bearing while deciding the questions raised in the present petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 13 - R C Chavan - Full Document
1