|
REFERENCES
|
ISSUE
RAISED /FACTS
|
HELD
|
|
1
|
PRADIP
KUMAR
BANERJEE
Vs UNION OF INDIA
2001
(89)FLR 820 [HC-CAL-SJ]
|
1
2
|
BASED
ON A POLICY DECISION, AGE
OF SUPERANNUATION RAISED
FROM 58 TO 60
IF A
POLICY DECISION IS TAKEN
TO REDUCE AGE BNCK TO 58
WILL IT VIOLATE THE RIGHT
OF REASONABLE EXPECTATION
AND ARTICLES 14,16 &
21?
|
1
|
SINCE MAJORITY EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT
OPPOSED THE ROLL BACK AND
THE AGE OF RETIREMENT HAS
NOT BEEN BROUGHT BELOW THE
ORIGINAL AGE OF 58, THERE
IS NO VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OR HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
|
|
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]
|
|
3
|
PANDIYAN
ROAD-WAYS CORPN
Vs
PRINCIPAL
LABOUR COURT, MADURAI
[2001
(3) LLN 1155 HC-MAD-DB]
|
1
2
|
CORPORATION
HAD INTRODUCED AN
ATTENDANCE INCENTIVE
SCHEME WITH CONDITION THAT
EVEN IF ONE EMPLOYEE
INDULGES IN WORK STOPPAGE
OF STRIKE ALL WORKMEN WILL
LOSE THE INCENTIVE.
NON-STRIKING
WORKMEN CHALLENGED THIS
STIPULATION ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THIS OFFENDS ARTICLE
14 DEALING WITH EQUAL PAY
FOR EQUAL WORK.
|
1
2
|
THE PREFORMANCE INCENTIVE IS
NEITHER A RIGHT NOR FORMS
PART OF THE WAGES WHICH
WORKERS EARN
IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO
VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF’EQUAL
PAY’NOR VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 14
|
|
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.
|
|
5
|
R
SWAMINATHAN
Vs
MANIPAL
ACADEMY OF HIGHER
EDUCATION
[2001
(3) LLN 165 – HC DEL –
SB]
|
1
2
3
|
TWO
LECTURERS WERE APPOINTED
ON PROBATION FOR 2 YEARS
THE
PROBATION CLAUSE
STIPULATED NOTHING ABOUT
TERMINATION DURING
PROBATION PERIOD.
CAN
MANAGEMENT TERMINATE
APPOINTMENT BEFORE EXPIRY
OF PROBATION PERIOD?
|
1
2
3
|
IN
THE
ABSENCE
OF CLAUSE ENABLING
EARLIER TERMINATION OR
TERMINATION DURING PROBATION
PERIOD MANAGEMENT
CAN TERMINATE ON
PROBATION GROUNDS
ONLY AT THE END OF THE
PROBATION PERIOD.
TERMINATION BEFORE PERIOD EXPIRES
IS POSSIBLE IF AN ENQUIRY IS
CONDUCTED AND MISCONDUCT
IS
ESTABLISHED.
[AL TERMINATIVELY FULL SALARY FOR
THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF
PROBATION MAY HAVE TO BE
PAID.
|
|
6
|
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.
|
|
7
|
SUBRATA
SEN
Vs
UNION
OF INDIA (IOC)
[2001
(4)SCT 424-SC]
|
|
IS DENIAL OF REVISION INPENSION
BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES WHO
RETIRED PRIOR TO THE
REVISION DATE JUSTIFIED?
|
1
2
|
IF THE
ENTITLEMENT TO
PENSION IS AUTOMATIC ON
RETIREMENT AND THE SAME IS
PROVIDED IN THE SERVICE
RULES AND CONDITION OF
SERVICE, REVISION BENEFIT
HAS TO BE EXTENDED
TO PRIOR RETIREES ALSO.
IF
THE
PENSION
SCHEME
I S CREATED BY
CONTRIBUTION BY EMPLOYER
AND EMPLOYEES THERE IS
JUSTIFICATION IN
INTRODUCING A CUT OFF DATE
FOR REVISED PENSION
BENEFITS.
|
|
8
|
KARNATAKA ITDC HOTELS OFFICERS
ASSN
Vs
ITDS
2002(2)LLJ 193 (HC KAR)
AND
BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION VS UNION OF
INDIA
2002(100)FJR[SC]
|
1
|
DO EMPLOYEES OF PUBLIC SECTOR
COMPANIES HAVE A RIGHT TO
BE HEARD BEFORE GOVERNMENT
TAKES ANY DECISION ON
DISINVESTING ITS SHARES IN
PSUs?
|
1
2
3
|
THE EMPLOYEES HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION THE GOVERNMENTS
POLICY DECISION ON
DISINVESTMENT
PERSON SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN SUCH CORPORATIONS MUST BE
PRESUMED TO ACCEPT THE
RIGHT OF THE DIRECTORS AND
SHARE HOLDERS TO CONDUCT
THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
MERELY BECAUSE PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES HAVE THE PROTECTION
OF ARTICLES 14&16 THEY
DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO
DEMAND PRIOR NOTICE AND
CONSULTATION ON MATTERS OF
DISINVESTMENT.
|
|
9
|
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.
|
