Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra, CJI., Kuldip Singh, S.Mohan, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan
Versus
Shankar Lal Kunda Ram Banwarilal
Case No., 1092 , 1091 , 1093 of 1990
Date of Decision, 10/9/91
(1) SPECIAL leave granted in fresh matters.
(2) IN the State of Rajasthan, the government introduced a special scheme known by three separate names for providing employment to at least one member of every landless family not already provided work to make provision of work for 100 days in a year and the scheme conceived of the arrangement that after 100 days of employment was over, some- one else similarly situated would be provided employment so that the scheme would be running and available to provide employment to as many unemployed people in the State as it could cover.
(3) WE are of the view that the scheme has a philosophy behind it and the basic aspect is that those who have no employment at all would have provision of employment for at least 100 days and the basic 100 days employment would provide them sustenance for the remaining period during which they have no employment. Good of the greatest number seems to be the basic aspect which has been lost sight of by the High Court. We vacate the decision of the High court and restore the scheme to operate. The respondents would not be entitled to any other, relief excepting the benefit envisaged in the scheme of employment for 100 days in a year.
(4) THE appeals are allowed. There will he no order for costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
