Negotiable Instruments: Exhaustive Coverage by Adv Roma Bhagat. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

labour laws

(Querist) 18 April 2008 This query is : Resolved 
in today's Amar Ujala daily news paper there was a news referring a recent Supreme Court decision in which Hon'ble court has ruled that a loss making employer cannot deny wages hike to its employees.
the case has reference to Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation.Verdict has been given by Justice R V Ravindran and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta revertibg the Decision of Haryana and Puajab High Court.
Can I get the details of this judgement.

H. S. Thukral (Expert) 19 April 2008
Dear Mr. Singh
Full text of judgement is as follows

Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Others
(1) G. S. Uppal and Others; (2) Chakrawarti Garg; (3) A. S. Dhir

L. S. Panta

16 Apr 2008

R.V. Raveendran & L. S. Panta

State Bank of India and another v M.R. Ganesh Babu and others 2002 Indlaw SC 244
Indian Overseas Bank v I. O. B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another 2000 Indlaw SC 511
M. M. R. Khan and Others v Union of India and Others 1990 Indlaw SC 729
K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2006 (9) SCC 406]
Union of India v. S.B. Vohra 2004 (2) SCC 150

Companies Act, 1956
Constitution Of India, 1950[art. 14, art. 16]

Civil Appeal No. 9244 of 2003 With Civil Appeal No. 9239 of 2003, With Civil Appeal No. 9248 of 2003

Service - High Court held that respondents entitled for the revision of pay scales at par with their counter-parts working in the State of Haryana - Appeal against - Held, deputationist holds the post in a particular cadre office for the duration he remains on deputation and is a part of that cadre - No material has been placed on record by the appellants to show that the deputationists are appointed against only certain particular posts or that they cannot be posted or transferred to the posts held by the respondents - Appellants did not produce any evidence on record to establish that the working conditions, responsibilities and nature of duties, etc. of the respondents are different to their counter-parts working in the same categories in the State Government, Boards and other Corporations, etc. and also the persons who are working with the Corporation on deputation - Appeals dismissed.

Finance Commission, Companies Act, 1956, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE, Appeals Dismissed, Constitution Of India, 1950, SERVICE, CONSTITUTION, Violation Of, Pay Scale, Terms And Conditions, Selection Grade, Validity Of, Law Officer, Revision Of Pay, Time Scale, Government Servants, Fixation Of Pay, Pay Fixation, Executive Instructions, Public Undertakings, Advocate General, Deputationist


The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

1. These appeals, by special leave, filed by Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Others are directed against the common judgment dated August 22, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 725/1993 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5946/1994 and Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated May, 18, 1993 of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.P. No.14200/1993 and allowed C.W.P. No. 5946/1994 filed by Chakrawarti Garg and C.W.P. No. 834/1996 of A.S. Dhir, respondents herein.

3. These appeals are similar in nature and they involve identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

4. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals are that the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 9244/2003 and 9248/ 2003, at the time of filing of the writ petitions, were working on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation') ' appellant No. 1, which is a Government company, within the meaning of that expression under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent in C.A. No. 9239/2003 was working as Law Officer with the Corporation. State of Haryana exercises deep and pervasive control over the Corporation. Secretary, Irrigation Department; Secretary, Agricultural Department; Secretary, Finance Department, to the Government of Haryana; Chairman, Haryana State Electr

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :