SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 801

SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, S.S.M.QUADRI
BURN STANDARD COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
TARUN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS appeal presents an instance of application of the rule, "no work, no pay" as well as the exception to the said rule. In response to an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Deputy Manager, Accounts (Project), the first respondent who was employed with some other management, applied to the appellant Company on 25-2-1983. He was selected and a letter of appointment was issued to him on 23-5-1984. Between the said date and 22-10-1984, correspondence between the first respondent and the appellant is brought on record but it is not necessary to refer to the same because the appellant had agreed to extend the time till 22-10-1984 to enable the first respondent to join the service. It is not in dispute that, on that date, the first respondent reported for duty but he was not allowed to work nor was he paid any salary from that date.

( 2 ) IT appears that the appellant was involved in litigation in the Calcutta high Court, with the Burns Standard Officers Association being Civil Rule no. 4543 (W) of 1982. In the said proceedings, a learned Single Judge of the high Court at Calcutta passed the following order:"till the disposal of this application, no appointment by









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top