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

1997 Supreme(AP) 599

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, P.S.MISHRA
T. Bupal – Appellant
Versus
Director,national Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad – Respondent


P. S. MISHRA, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) WE do not propose, in the instant case, to go into the question whether national Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), Department of Space, Government of India, Balanagar, Hyderabad, is a "state" for the purposes of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or an "industry" for the purposes of Industrial disputes Act, 1947. We cannot also find any such error in the impugned judgment from which we can hold that the respondents in the appeal had no cause to remove/retrench the petitioner - appellant, or terminate his services. The impugned order of the learned single Judge, thus, cannot in the absence of such adjudication, be said to be bad. In course of hearing, however, it has transpired that there has been nothing adverse to the petitioner -appellant during the period he served as Draughtsman allegedly on ad hoc/ contract basis and he was found fit for such job when he was selected as per advertisement No. 6/91 for appointment as Draughtsman. He has satisfactorily served respondents for about four years. We do not have however, any information whether any person has been engaged for work subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner - appellant while he was


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