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.
|
|