Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., Sujata. V. Manohar, J.
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS, PETITIONERS
Versus
HIMACHAL INSTITUTE OF ENGG. AND TECHNOLOGY, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA, RESPONDENT.
Special Leave (C) No. 15938 of 1995,
decided on January 25, 1996.
ORDER
We had dealt with this matter at length and had passed the speaking order on 4-1-1996. It was at the fag end of the submissions that the learned counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh had desired that we give him an opportunity to place the matter before, the State Government to enable it to make a positive response of the State Government in the matter of filling up the vacancies. There is no response to the same except that the counsel states that the State Government has no desire to fund this Institute because, according to her, it is no more authorised. We have set out earlier the facts leading to the making of the IAs and have also referred to the decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan case [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645] as well as in the case of T. M. A. Pai Foundation [T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 5 SCC 220]. We had extracted the relevant paragraph from the decision of Unni Krishnan case [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645] which clearly stated that any vacancies still remaining after the cut-off date can be filled by the management. In the instant case also, there have been vacancies which have remained unfilled after the cut-off date and it would, therefore, be open to the management to fill them up in the manner they consider appropriate. The SLP will stand disposed of in the light of and as per directions in Unni Krishnan case [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645].
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
