Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Cases of Importance

Home
About Us
What's New
What All India Bank Staff Association has to say
Welfare Schemes of the bank
Service Conditions of Bank Employees : Historical Achievments
Seventh Bipartite Settlement
VIII Bipartite Settlement
Voice Of PNB Employees
Cases of Importance
Picture Gallery


REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

WING PHARMACEUTICALS Vs  PRAGATISHEEL MAZDOOR SANGH

 

[2001(II) LLJ 304 [HC-DEL-SB]OTHER CASES [1991 LLR 792,1989 (I) LLJ 117, 1982 AIR SC 1302][1997(76) FLR 628 (KER),1998 LLR 1003 (KER),1999 LLR 204 (KER)]

1

CAN PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS BE OBTAINED AGAINST UNIONS DEMONSTRATING INSIDE/IN THE FRONT GATE AND CAUSING OBSTRUCTION?

1

PERMANENT/AD-HOC INJUNCTIONS CAN BE ISSUED BY COURTS, RESTRAINING DEMONSTRATIONS WITHIN 100 METRES

2

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN LTD

Vs

PETROLEUM EMPLOYEES UNION

 

[2001(91)FLR 108 HC-BOM-DB]

 

CAN A CIVIL SUIT BE FILED AGAINST A TRADE UNION/WORKMEN TO PREVENT THEM FROM GOING ON AN ILLEGAL  STRIKE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 22(1) OF I.D.ACT 1947?

1

 

 

 2.

 

 

 

 

3.

A CIVIL IUNJUNCTION CANNOT BE ISSUED ON A MATTER PROVIDED UNDER SPECIAL STATUES LIKE I.D.ACT.

 

SECTION 18 AND 17 OF THE TRADE UNIONS ACT 1926 SEPCIFICALLY GIVE THE RIGHT TO WORKMEN TO WITHDRAW THEIR LABOUR AND SUCH ACTION IS PROTE TED EVEN IF IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.

 

EVEN IF THE STRIKE IS ILLEGAL NO INJUNCATIONOR ORDER CAN BE ISSUED BY CIVIL COURTS TOFORCE THE WORKMEN TO RETURN TO WORK.

3

CHACKOLAS  SPINNING & WEAVING MILL Vs

CHAKOLAS

T.M.T.UNION

 

2002(2)LLJ 33[HC-KER-DB]

1

 

 

 

 

2.

A UNION WHICH WAS NOT RECOGNISED BY THE MANAGEMENT APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT TO DIRECT THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND MANAGEMENT TO GRANT RECOGNISTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF REFERENDUM BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT.

 

CAN THE HIGH COURT ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO CONDUCT THE REFERENDUM?

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

3.

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY DUTY THE HIGH COURT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING ANY DIRECTION TO LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO HOLD A REFERENDUM IN A PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANY.


IF IT WERE A PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANY IT WOULD BE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 14 AND COURTS CAN ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO HOLD REFERENDUM

 

IN THIS CASE THE SINGLE JUDGES ORDER TO LABOUR COMMISSIONER TOHOLD REFERENDUM WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE DIVISION BENCH.

4

GOVERNMENT TOOL ROOM & TRAINING CENTRE OFFICERS ASSOCIAITON VS ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER BANGALORE 2002(93)FLR 580 [HC-KAR]

1

 

 

 

2

 



3

THE  SUPERVISORS  AND OFFICERS  WHO  DO NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ‘WORKMEN’ UNDER ID ACT APROACHED THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTERING THEIR ASSOCIATION AS A TRADE UNION UNDER T.U.ACT 1926


COMMISSIONER REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT WORKMEN


IS THE COMMISSIONER DECISION JUSTIFIED?

1

 

 

 2

AS PER SECTIONS 2(H) ,4,8, AND 9 OF .T.U.1926,THERE ISNO REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYEES SEEKING REGISTRATION AS A UNION SHOULD SATISFY DEFINITION OF ‘WORKMAN’ UNDER ID ACT.

ALL EMPLOYEES INCLUDING OFFICERS CAN GET THEIR ASSOCIAITONS REGISTERED AS A TRADE UNION.

5

STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK Vs GRINDLAYS BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

 

2002(92) FLR 820 OF [HC-DEL] 2002 (2) LLJ 1009

1






 

2

 

 

3.

 

 

 4

 

 

 5

 

 

 

 6

 

 

 7

SECTION 36 AD(1) OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1948 STIPULATES AS FOLLOWS:

 

NO ONE SHALL OBSTRUCT ANY PERSON FROM ENTERING OR LEAVING THE BANK.

 

HOLD WITHIN THE OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS ANY DEMONSTRATION CALCULATED TO PREVENT NORMAL BANKING TRANSACTIONS

 

ACT IN ANY MANNER CALCULATED TO UNDERMINE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE DEPOSITORS.

 

SECTION 36AD(2) STIPULATES THAT ANYBODY CONTRAVENING THE ABOVE RULE WITHOUT A REASONABLE EXCUSE SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT WHICH MAY EXTEND UPTO 6 MONTHS.

 

BANK FILED AN INJUNCTION SUIT AGAINST THE  ASSOCIATION  TO PREVENT THEM  FROM  INDULGING  IN  THE ABOVE ACTIONS

 

THE ASSOCIATION CONTENDED THAT CIVIL COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CASE AGAINST THEM AS THEY ARE ONLY INDULGING IN NORMAL TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES AND THEY HAVE IMMUNITY FROM  PROSECUTION  UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE T.U.ACT1926

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

2.

GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION, THE JUDGE HELD:

 

IF  A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY INDULGED IN BY THE ASSOCIATION ATTRACTS SECTION 36 AD OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, IT CEASES TO BE A TRADE DISPUTE CONTEMPLATED IN THE T.U.ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSOCIATION CEASES TO ENJOY THE PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE T.U.ACT.

 

AN ACT THOUGH CRIMINAL IN NATURE, IF IT CAUSES INJURY TO A PERSON OR PROSPERITY OF ANOTHER, THE CIVIL COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION AND POWER TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS.

Industrial Disputes Act : Latest Decisions
 

REFERENCES

ISSUE RAISED /FACTS

HELD

1

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

Vs

GOVIND PHOPALE
2003 (96) FLR 145[HC-BOM-SB]

OR

2003 (3) LLJ 1036

1  



 


2




3




4

ACCORDING TO THE ‘5’ BENCH SCJUDGEMENT IN 2002 (92) FLR 667[JAIPUR ZILLA CASE] INTERMINATION CASES ATTRACTINGSECTIONS 33(1) & 33(3) OF THE IDACT, DEFACTO & DEJURESEVERENCE OF THE EMPLOYEETAKES PLACE ONLY AFTER WRITTENPERMISSION IS OBTAINED AND A TERMINATION ORDER IS ISSUED

WHERE AS IN THE CASE OF TERMINATION ATTRACTING 33(2) (B),THE DEFACTO TERMINATION ISPRECEDED BY DEJURE SEPARATION

IN THE 33(1) & 33(3) CASES THE WORKMEN IS ENTITLED TO WAGESTILL FORMAL WRITTEN PERMISSIONIS OBTAINED

THE QUESTION RAISED IS WHETHERIN TERMINATION CASES UNDER33(2)(B) IS THE WORKMAN ELIGIBLEFOR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCEFROM THE TERMINATION DATE TILLTHE DATE OF DISPOSAL OF THE APPROVAL PETITION ?

1

THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBEDFOR PROCESSING [33(1), 33(3)AND 33(2)(B) BEING THE SAMEAND THE DEFURE TERMINATION TAKES EFFECT ONLY LATER,THE WORKMAN SHOULD BEGIVEN THE SUBSISTENCEALLOWANCE FOR THE PERIODTILL DISPOSAL OF THEAPPROVAL PETITION

2

MANAGEMENT OF KALEESWARA MILLS

Vs

PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT 2002 (95) 

FLR 822[HC-MAD-DB]

1

 



2


3

4  

5

ACCORDING TO THE STANDINGORDER ANY EMPLOYEE CONVICTEDFOR A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IS LIABLETO BE DISMISSED

EMPLOYER ACCORDINGLYDISMISSED THE WORKER [AFTERISSUE OF DUE NOTICE]

ON APPEAL THE CRIMINALCONVICTION WAS SET ASIDE AFTERA FEW YEARS

 WORKER WAS REINSTATED

IS THE WORKER ENTITLED OREMPLOYER OBLIGATED TO PAYBACK WAGES FOR PERIOD HEREMAINED OUT OF EMPLOYMENT

1

 



 

 

2

 

QUOTING THREE APEX COURTDECISIONS IN MANAGEMENT OFRESERVE BANK OF INDI[1994(68) FLR 22(SC)]RANCHODJI CHATURJITHAKORE’S CASE [1997(91) FLR53 (SC)] AND HUKMI CHANDSCASE [1998 (79)FLOR 743 (SC)]HELD THAT THE ABSENCEFROM EMPLOYMENT WAS DUETO NO FAULT OF THEEMPLOYER AND HENCEEMPLOYER NOT BOUNDER TO PAY ANY BACK WAGES

 

WORKMEN WILL BE REINSTATED WITHOUT ANY BACK WAGES


3

INDIAN  TELEPHONE  INDUSTRIES LTD

Vs 

PRABHAKAR MANJARE

2002(95) FLR 1108[SC

 

2001 (II) LLJ 199 [SC-5 BENCH] OR 2001 (3) LLN 105 [SC-5 BENCH]

  1




2



3



4

MANAGEMENT DISMISSED A WORKMAN AND FILED AN APPROVAL PETITION UNDER SECTION 33(2)(b) AS THERE WAS AN INDUSTRIALDISPUTE PENDING

THE APPROVAL PETITION  WAS REJECTED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH PROVISIONS OF 33(2)(B) PROPERLY

MANAGEMENT THEN RESUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AFTER RECTIFYING THE DEFECTS

CAN MANAGEMENT MAKE A SECOND APPLICATION AFTER THE FIRST ONE WAS REJECTED ?

  1










2

QUOTING THE SUPREME COURT CONSTITUENT BENCH DECISION IN JAIPUR ZILLA VIKAS BANK CASE [2002(92)FLR667(SC)]HELD THAT, ONCE THE33(2)(B) PETITION HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF AND APPROVAL REQUEST TURNED DOWN, THE MANAGEMENTS DISMISSAL ACTION BECOMES VOID AND IT CANNOT BE REOPENED AGAIN

A SECOND APPROVAL APPLICATION IS THEREFORE NOT MAINTAINABLE


4

CHENNAI  PORT & DOCK WORKERS CONGRES

VS

UNION OF INDIA

2002(94) FLR 1072[HC-MAD-SB]

1

 

 

2

 

EXISTING SERVICE RULES SILENTABOUT TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES

 

IF EMPLOYEE IS TRANSFERRED WILLIT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OFSECTION 9A OF THE ID ACT

1

IF THE CURRENT SERVICE RULES DO NOT PROVIDE FOR PROVISIONS ON TRANSFER MANAGEMENT CAN TRANSFEREMPLOYEES ONLY AFTERGIVING NOTICE OF CHANGEUNDER SECTION 9A ANDCOMPLETE THE PROCEDUREPRESCRIBED IN ID ACT

5

SMT PAKKIYAM

VS

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY 

2002(94) FLR 1207[HC-KER-SB]

  1

CAN THE LABOUR COURTENTERTAIN BELATED AND STALECLAIMS UNDER SECTION 33 (C) (2)OF THE ID ACT ?

1

 

 

  2

 

THERE IS NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 33(C) OF IDACT

 

HOWEVER, IF LONG DELAYSARE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE LABOUR COURT CAN REJECT STALE CLAIMS

6

CANARA BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

VS
CANARA BANK 2002(94) FLR 985[HC-KER-DB]

  1





2

AS PER SECTION 19(2) & 19(6) aSETTLEMENT OR AWARD CAN BETERMINATED BY THE PARTIESAFTER THE VALIDITY PERIOD IS OVER

ON ISSUE OF SUCH A TERMINATION DOES IT AMOUNT TO GOING BACK TO THE PRE-SETTLEMENT OR PREAWARD SERVICE CONDITIONS ?

1

 

 

2

QUOTING THE EARLIER SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE LIC CASE [AIR 1980 SC-2181] HELD ON TERMINATION OF A SETTLEMENT OR AWARD THERE WILL BE NO GOING BACK TO THE PREAWARDOR PRE-SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS

THE TERMS UNDER THE TERMINATED AWARD/ SETTLEMENT WILL CONTINUE TO BE BINDING ON THE PARTIES UNTIL THE TERMS ARE ALTERED THROUGH A FRESH SETTLEMENT OR AWARD

7

UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI

VS

P.O. LABOUR COURT
2002 (95) FLR 299[HC-KER-SB]

 

1

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

3

AS PER SECTION 25B OF ID ACT A WORKMAN RETRENCHED WOULD BEENTITLED TO RECEIVE 
UNDER SECTION 17(B) OF ID ACT EMPLOYER BOUND TO PAY LAST DRAWN WAGES AS SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE DURING PENDENCY OF CHALLENGE BEFORE HIGH COURT/SUPREME COURT. 

SECTION 25-H STIPULATES THATRETRENCHED WORKMEN SHOULDBE RE-ENGAGED IF OPERATIONSARE RESUMED AT ANY FUTUREDATE

ARE WORKMEN WHO WERE RETRENCHED WITHOUT COMPENSATION [THAT IS NOT SATISFYING THE 240 TEST] ENTITLED TO RE-ENGAGEMENT BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 25-B 

1

 

  2

 

 

 




 

THE RIGHT TO CLAIM RE-ENGAGEMENT IS NOT LIMITED TO WORKMEN WHO RECEIVE COMPENSATION

WORKMEN WHO DID NOT SATISFY SECTION 25-B REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO RE-ENGAGEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

8.

RANJIT SINGH

VS
PRESIDING OFFICER

 2003(1) LLJ 1100
[HC-P&H – DB]

1

 
2
 




3

WORKMEN AT HYDERABAD TRANSFERRED TO MANIPAL

HE REFUSED TO JOIN AT MANIPAL AND  RAISED A DISPUTE HAS IND. TRIBUNAL HYDERBAD

JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CASE OR SHOULD THE ID BE RAISED AT MANIPAL ?

1

 

2  





3

ONCE THERE IS A VALID TRANSFER THE JURISDICTION FOR RISING INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE WILL BE THE PLACEOF NEW POSTING

THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ILLEGALLY KEEPING AWAY FROM THE PLACE OF POSTING WILL NOT ALTER THIS POSITION

JURISDICTION OF HYDERABAD IS THEREFORE RULED OUT 

9

suraj palsing

vs

labour court  
2002(95) flr 521 [hc-del-sb]
2002(iii) llj 885

state of rajasthan
 
vs

mahendra joshi
2002 (95) flr 595 [hc-raj-db]

  1




2







3

a





b

SECTIONS 25-B AND 25-F OF ID ACT STIPULATE THE QUALIFYING CONDITIONS FOR RECEIVING RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION

25B(2)(A) STIPULATES THAT TO QUALIFY A WORKMAN WHO IS NOTIN REGULASR SERVICE MUST HAVE ‘ACTUALLY WORKED ‘FOR ATLEAST 240 DAYS DURING THE 12 MONTHS PRECEDING THE DATE OFRETREBCGNEBT


TWO QUESTIONS WERE RAISED 

WILL ‘ACTUALLY WORKED’INCLUDE NON WORKING DAYS FOR WHICH WORKER RECEIVED WAGES ?

IF WORKMAN DID NOT SATISFY 240 DAYS IN THE IMMEDIATE [PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS, BUT HAD SATISFIED THE 240 TEST FOR EARLIER YEARS WOULD HE BE ENTITLED FOR RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION ?

1

 

 

2

ACTULLY WORKED SHOULD BE GIVEN THE MARKED DAYS FOR WHICH HE RECEIVFGED PAYMENT

EVEN IF 240 DAYS TEST NOT SATISFIED IN THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS IF IN ANY OF HIS EARLIER YEARS,M HE HAS SATISFIED THE TEST, HE CANNOT BE DENIEDRETRENCHMENTCOMPENSATION


NOTE : A WORKING ONREGULAR EMPLOYMENT NEED NOT GO THROUGH THIS 240 DAY TEST TO QUALIFY

10

BANK OF BARODA

VS

G SRIRAM
2003 (I) LLJ 905[HC-AP-DB]

1

 

2  




3

WORKMAN CHALLENGED HISDISMISSAL UNDER SECTION 11A OFID ACT

TRIBUNAL AFTER HOLDINGDOMESTIC ENQUIRY VALID PERMITTED THE WORKMAN TO LEAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

IS THIS ACTION OF TRIBUNAL VALID 

1

 

2.  




3

ONCE THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY IS IN ORDER, THE COURT HAS TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ALREADY EXISTING

THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT PERMIT FRESH EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN

SEE THE LEADING CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT ON POWERS OF TRIBUNALS UNDER SECTION 11A IN NEETA KAPLISH’S CASEIN 1999 (I) LLJ 275

11

RANJIT SINGH

VS

PRESIDING OFFICER

2003(1) LLJ 1100[HC-P&H-DB]

1  






2






3



4

MANAGEMENT DECIDED TOTERMINATE UNION LEADERS FORINVESTIGATING ILLEGAL STRIKE

SINCE A DISPUTE WAS PENDINGFILED A PERMISSION APPLICATIONBEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER TOCOMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OFSECTION 33(1)

WORKER WAS PLACED UNDER SUSPENSION BUT NOT PAID ANY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE

IS THE WORKMAN ELIGIBLE FOR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE?

1  





ONLY ON PERMISSION BEINGGRANTED DOES THE JURALRELATIONSHIP WITHEMPLOYER COME TO AN END

CITING SEVERAL SUPREMECOURT DECISIONS, HELD WORKMAN ENTITLED TO SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE DURING PERIOD OF SUSPENSION THAT IS TILL THE PETITION UNDER 33(1) IS DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL

 

12

PRAMOD JHA

VS

STATE OF BIHAR
2003(2) LLJ 159 [SC]

1

 

 

 

2

AS PER SECTION 25 (F)RETRENCHMENT WOULD BE ILLEGAL IF NOTICE OF RETRENCHMENTPAYMENT OF COMPENSATION ANDINTIMATION TO GOVERNMENT IS NOTALL DONE TOGETHER

THE WORKMAN CHALLENGED HISRETRENCHMENT ON THE GROUNDTHAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADEAT THE TIME OF NOTICE

1

 

2  



3

4

SECTION 25(E) DOES NOT STIPULATE THAT PAYMENT HAS TO BE MADE AT THE TIME OF GIVING NOTICE

THE SECTION REQUIRES ONLY PAYMENT TO BE MADE AT TIME OF ACTUAL RETRENCHMENT

 IN THIS CASE PAYMENT WAS MADE AT TIME OF RETRENCHMENT

  ACTION OF MANAGEMENT UPHELD

Service Matters

2

STATE BANK OF INDIA

Vs

ANJAYN SANYAL

 

2001 (90) FLR 14 [SC-DB]

1

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN COURTS INTERFERE WITH ORDERS OF TRANSFERS?

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

4

ORDER OF TRANSFERS SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERED LIGHTLY BY COURTS.

 

SHOULD INTERFERE ONLY WHEN IT IS IN VIOLATION OF SERVICE RULES OR

 

ORDER IS ISSUED BY NON-COMPETENT PERSONS OR

 

IS MALAFIDE OR AMOUNTS TO VICTIMIZATION.

SEE ALSO [2001 (II) LLJ 1243 SC NH ELEC CORP]

4

NATIONAL HYDRO

ELECTRICAL Vs

SHRI BHAGWAN

 

[2001 (II)LLJ 1243 – SC]

 

WHEN CAN COURTS INTERFERE IN MATTERS OF TRANSFER OF A GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEE?

1

 

 

   
2

 

 

3.

NO GOVERNMENT SERVANT OR EMPLOYEE OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS HAS ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO BE POSTED FOR EVER AT ANY ONE  PLACE.


UNLESS AN ORDER IS SHOWN TO BE AN OUTCOME OF MALAFIDE EXERCISE OF POWER OR IS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES, COURTS SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN MATTERS OF TRANSFER

TRANSFER  MAY  BE  REQUIRED IN  PUBNLIC  INTEREST AND FOR MAINTENANCE  OF  EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION.

SCOOTERS INDIA

Vs

M MOHAMMAD YAQUB

 

[2001 (88)FLR 274 – SC]

TP SINHA Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

[2001(91)FLR 14 HC – JHAR]

1

 

 

 

   

2

MANY STANDING ORDERS PROVIDE A CLAUSE THAT A WORKMAN OVER-STAYING APPROVED LEAVE BEYOND ‘X’ DAYS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LOSE HIS EMPLOYMENT OR HIS NAME WOULD BE STRUCK OFF FROM THE ROLLS.

 

IS HIS CLAUSE LEGALY MAINTAINABLE?

1

 

 

 

2.

EVENTHOUGH THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDERS PROVIDE FOR AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OR REMOVAL FROM THE ROLLS, THE SAME ISNOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE.

   

AN EMPLOYEE MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS ABSENCE AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN ONLY THEREAFTER

VED PRAKASH & OTHERS

VS

STATE OF HARYANA

 

2002(2)LLJ 149 [SC]

 OR 2002 (92)FLR 549 [SC]

1

 

 

 


2

THE SERVICE RULES PROVIDED FOR PROMOTION BASED ON ‘SENIORITY CUM MERIT’

 

 

 

IS SENIORITY ALONE TO BE THE BASIS OF PROMOTION AS CONTENDED BY THE PETITIONER?

 

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

3

PROMOTION BASED ON ‘SENIORITY CUM MERIT’ DOES NOT IMPLY THAT PROMOTION MUST BE BASED ONLY ON SENIORITY

 

 

A MINIMUM STANDARD OF MERIT CAN BE PRESCRIBED.

 

FROM AMONG THOSE MEETING THE MINIMUM NORM THE SENIORS MUST BE PROMOTED DEPENDING ON NUMBER OF VACANCIES.

Lic

vs.

jagmohan sharma (1998 (80) flr 833 sc - db)

If courts find irregularity in promotions, can they, as part of judicial review, issue orders to promote any particular person ?

courts while reviewing promotions must only strike down promotions and leave it to the establishments concerned to conduct the dpc afresh after strictly complying with the promotion rules. courts should refrain from ordering promotions.

Beware of Retired and Tired Leaders playing in the hands of the Management