Judgments - Regularisation
MOHAN SINGH & ORS Vs. THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS
RAKHIAL GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. JAGATSINH ADESINH JHALA
F.C.I. Vs. SANKAR GHOSH & ORS.
SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. GREATER NOIDA IND. DEVELOPMENT AUTH.&ORS
The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the policy decision extending the benefit of regularisation to contractual employees against 60% vacant posts will be deemed to regularise the services of the appellants from the retrospective date, that is, 20.11.2002, when the said posts were first advertised. The appellants were Full Judgment
PREM RAM Vs. M.D. UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & NIRM.NIGM&ORS
If engagement in a work- charged establishment rest on a criterion, no better than the absolute discretion of the authority engaging them or the fortuitous circumstances of a vacancy or need in a work-charged establishment, then, there is indeed no difference between a daily-wager on the one hand and work-charged employees on the other. No distinction can resultantly be Full Judgment
HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI & ORS. Vs. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.
UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. THE SEC.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE UNION & ORS
They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Full Judgment
- 1
- 2
- Next
- Last