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

1990 Supreme(Del) 305

ARUN B.SAHARYA
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI – Appellant
Versus
DELHI MUNICIPAL KARAMCHARI EKTA UNION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK AGARWAL, J.M.SABHARWAL, MADHA BALD, R.SABHARVAL

Arun B. Saharya

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 21st of March, 1987 made by the Industrial Tribunal No. III, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE award has been made on a dispute between the parties in respect of a circular No. 3267/doi dated 22nd of December, 1975 issued by the petitioner-corporation directing that no municipal employee shall be allowed to act as a defence assistant in more than one case during a year.

( 3 ) EMPLOYEES of the Corporation, so far as conduct of enquiry and disciplinary action is concerned, are governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959. Regulation 8 prescribes the procedure for imposing penalty. Clause (5) of Regulation 8 is relevant for the present purpose and is set out below :-

" (5) The Disciplinary Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the Inquiring Authority. The municipal officer or other municipal employee may present his case with the assistance of any other municipal officer or employee approved by the Disciplinary Authority, but shall not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless th

























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