Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sabysaschi Mukharji, CJI., K.N. Saikia, M.M. Punchhi, JJ.
VIJAY PAL SHARMA AND OTHERS, PETITIONERS
VERSUS
DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
I.A. No. 2 In Writ Petition No. 818 of decided on March 12, 1990.
ORDER
1. Having considered the facts we are of the opinion that this matter is covered by the decision of the court entitled Niadar and Another v. Delhi Administration and Another ((1992) 4 SCC 112) which was decided on September 29, 1988. In terms thereof thus, we direct the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioners in accordance with the prepared scheme for absorbing casual labourers, which scheme has been made effective from October 1, 1988. In terms of the scheme, any casual labourer who has worked for one year or more in the Horticulture Department shall be regularised within a period of six months from today if such casual labourer is otherwise fit to be regularised under the scheme as regular employee. On that footing each casual labourer working in the department shall get salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to be regular employee in comparable posts in the Horticulture Department.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the expression salary or wages used in Niadar case ((1992) 4 SCC 112) and which has been used instantly also has given rise to a doubt in the department as to whether on regularisation minimum wage is to be paid or minimum salary to the regular employee, and on that about Rs. 750 per month instead of Rs. 1100 per month has been paid to some of the employees. Learned counsel for the Delhi Administration disputes this fact and says that it was always meant and always shall mean that minimum salary plus allowances which comes to about Rs. 1100 has been paid to such employees and is otherwise payable. This clarifies the doubt expressed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in these terms. No 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
