REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

TRIVENI   KS  

VS.    

 UNION OF INDIA 

2003(3) LLJ [HC-AND-DB]

1

IS THE    RESTRICTIONS   ON    WOMEN EMPLOYMENT     DURING    NIGHT   SHIFTS LEGALLY     VALID?

1

THE  RESTRICTIONS  UNDER  SECTION 66(2) OF  FACTORIES ACT IS AIMED AT PROJECTING THE  DETERIORATION  OF  FISH AND NOT AIMED AT  PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF WOMEN

  IT IS THEREOF VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 2, 3 & 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE STRUCK DOWN


THE  MADRAS  HIGH  COURT  HAD  A LSO  IN   VASANTA’S   CASE   (2002)(2) LLJ 843 HELD  SECTION   66(2)   OF THE   FACTORIES ACT AS    UNCONSTITUTIONAL



HOWEVER, THE  KERALA  HIGH   COURT  IN M. SHAILA  VS   COCHIN   PORT  TRUST  HAD HELD THIS SECTIONS   AS CONSTITUTIONALLY   VALID   AND  IT  NOW NEEDS    A   RELOCK


UNTIL  KERALA  HC  OR  SUPREME  COURT HOLDS   IT   AS     UNCONSTITUTIONAL SECTION    66(2)  IS   VALID   LAW   IN KERALA

2

DELHI   TRANSPORT   CORPORATION   

VS      

RAJBIR SINGH

 2003(1)LLJ 865[HC-DEL-DB]

1  











a



b


c



2






3

AS PER SECTION 47 OF THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 1995. PERSONS IN GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANIES BECOMING DISABLED DURING SERVICE WILL ENJOY THE FOLLOWING PROTECTIONS



HIS SERVICES CANNOT BE DIOSPENSED WITH OR HIS RANK REDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DISABILITY AND



IF HE IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER JOB  IT SHOULD BE ON SAME PAY AND SERVICE BENEFITS

NO PROMOTION SHALL BE DENIED TO HIM MERELY ON GROUNDS OF DISABILITY


IN THIS CASE HIS ACCIDENT WAS PRIOR TO THE ACT COMING INTO FORCE BUT REMOVAL FROM JOB WAS AFTER THE ACT CAME INTO FORCE


IS THIS ACTION IN ORDER ?

  1

FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 47 OF THE DATE OF DISABILITY IS NOT RELEVANT BUT DATE ON WHICH DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN IS TO BE TREATED AS RELEVANT

3

V.R.HIREMATH  

 VS 

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION 
2002(2) LLJ785[HC-BOM-DB]

1

2  




3

THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN EMPLOYEES UNION AND MANAGEMENT A SELF FINANCING PENSION SCHEME WAS INTRODUCED

THE SCHEME ENVISAGED NO MANAGEMENT CONTRIBUTION AND WAS TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM 7th NOVEMBER 1987

EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1987 CONTENDED THAT DENYING PENSION TO THEM IS ARBITRARY AND DEMANDED PENSION

1

SINCE THE SCHEME WAS NOT FLOATED BY THE CORPORATION AND IT WAS A SCHEME ESPOUSED BY THE EMPLOYEES, FIXING A CUT OFF DATE WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION OR BE ARBITRARY

4

KRISHI UTPADAN SAMITI

VS

ARVIND CHAUBEY

2003(1) LLJ507[SC]

[SEE ALSO MICHAL GILLS CASE 2003(1) LLJ756(SC)

1

WHILE RAISING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CAN A PETITIONER RAISE A NEW CONTENTION WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER COURTS

1

IF AN APPEAL PETITIONER HAS NOT RAISED THE CONTENTION IN THE LOWER COURTS, ORDINARILY THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT ALLOW TO RAISE A NEW CONTENTION BEFORE IT

2

OM PAL SING

VS

STATE OF UP

2003(94) FLR 405[HC-ALL-DB