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

1998 Supreme(AP) 2

B.K.SOMASEKHARA
M. Rajaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent


ORDER

1. These writ petitons constitute a batch between the similarly placed petitioners in all respects and the common respondents. They also sprout out queries of synonymous lex and factum. The antonym is individual grievances among the common. Spread Sheet-T is a chart comprising enumerated cases each batch, branches of the bank in which the petitioners are working (or were working), names of the Advocates and the reliefs claimed. The 1st respondent is the Central Office of the State Bank of India, the 2nd respondent the Chief Genera! Manager, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent Deputy General Manager, Department of Commercial network, local Head Office, Hyderabad, 4th respondent-Deputy General Manager, Hyderabad and the 5th respondent, the Asst. General Manager, Region-11, Zonal Office, Hyderabad as described in WP No.9206/97 and similar branches and its offices as described in other writ petitions. Distinguishably, the respondents in all the cases can be classified as the State Bank of India, its branches and the officers.

2. The petitioners are the hapless and helpless workers of the State Bank of India, called the temporary employees/daily wage casual workers/empanelled workers roll

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