You may also like...
-
Full orderTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.30074 of 2019—–Finding that the Authority concerned has deeply gone into all the factual and legal aspects and conferred permanent status on the Workmen, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is perfectly valid and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition filed by the Management is dismissed, on the ground of bereft of essence and substance and devoid of merits. It is true that no time limit is prescribed under the 1981 Act for seeking permanency, but at the same time, the employees must have approached the Authority concerned at least within a reasonable time frame. In the present case on hand, the employees have slept over for quite a long time and knocked at the doors of the Authority only in the year 2009. Once the order of the Authority is confirmed, all the benefits accrued to the employees should be extended to the employees from the date of permanency. However, taking into account the present pandemic situation and considering the fact that there is a delay in approaching the Authority, this Court, invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deprives backwages till today. However, it is made clear that on and from the date of completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months, the employees are entitled to continuity of service, with all other notional and consequential benefits, that are available to their counter parts and the same shall be extended to them within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 24.06.2021 Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order ar Note: Issue order copy and upload in the Web on 26.07.2021
by Sekar Reporter · Published July 26, 2021
-
[2/10, 19:58] Sekarreporter1: [2/10, 19:34] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 11.02.2021, K. Selvaraj, MHC Adv, “The decision of the Supreme Court upon a question of law is considered to be a binding precedent and this must be ascertained from the reasons assigned in support of the conclusion. Therefore, what is binding is the principle underlying the decision. (1) ICICI Bank -vs- Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, [(2005) 6 SCC 404], (2) State of W.B. -vs- Kesoram Industries Ltd., [(2004) 10 SCC 201], (3) Shah Prakash Anichand -vs- State of Gujarat, [(1986) 1 SCC 581]. [2/10, 19:57] [2/10, 19:58] Sekarreporter1: ..
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 11, 2021
-
மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் எஸ். —————————————- துரைசாமி ——————-
by Sekar Reporter · Published October 4, 2020