Back
(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 44
(BEFORE V.N. KHARE, CJI., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.)
SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - Appellants
Versus
UMADEVI (2) AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3595 - 3612 of 1999, 1861 - 2063,3849 of 2001, SLPs (C) Nos. 9103 - 05 of2001, 2029 - 47,8436 of 2002, CAs Nos. 3520 - 24 of 2002, SLPs (C) Nos. 12913 - 16 of 2002, CAs Nos. 3956 of 2001, 3914 - 22 of 2003 and SLP (C) ...
CCs Nos. 109 - 498 of 2003,
Decided on November 18, 2003
ORDER
1. Apart from the conflicting opinions between the three - Judge Bench decisions in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar1, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh2 and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka3 on the one hand and State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Venna4, State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar5 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka6 on the other, which have been brought out in one of the judgments under appeal of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Rao7, decided on 1 - 6 - 2001 the learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the scheme for regularisation is repugnant to Articles 16(4), 309, 320 and 335 of the Constitution and, therefore, these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges (Constitution Bench).
2. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Bhandare, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the employees urged that such a scheme for regularisation is consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayan, learned counsel appearing in CCs Nos. 109 - 498 of 2003, has filed the GO dated 19 - 7 - 2002 and submitted that the orders have already been implemented.
4. After having found that there is conflict of opinion between the three - Judge Bench decisions of this Court, we are of the view that these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges.
5. Let these matters be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
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
