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

2019 Supreme(SC) 576

R.BANUMATHI, R.SUBHASH REDDY
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD – Appellant
Versus
M. NATESAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. Sanya Kumar, Adv. Mr. N.R.Verma,Adv. Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2016 and batch in and by which the High Court has affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement and the back wages at 50%.

3. Between 1986-89, the respondents were engaged as Store Watchman on daily wages under NMR basis temporarily in newly created Sectional stores in various Sub Divisions under the control of Rural Water Supply (RWS) Divisions, Nagercoil. In the Engagement Order, it has been specifically mentioned that the engagement on daily wage basis will be purely temporary and the services will be terminated when the requirement is over and that they cannot claim any right for any further appointment in TWAD Board. In the Engagement Order itself, it is clearly stated that engagement is purely temporary and their services will be terminated when the requirement is over without prior notice. In view of the Board decision, all the Sectional stores were closed and the Divisional stores (ea












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