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

1988 Supreme(Guj) 119

R.J.SHAH, A.M.AHMADI
J. J. SHRIMALI – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,mehsana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.G.VAKHARIA, YATIN OZA

A. M. AHMADI, J.

( 1 ) THE short question which arises in this batch of petitions brought under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is whether Muster Karkoons engaged on purely ad hoc and temporary basis for supervising scarcity relief works (or projects so called) started by the State Government and administered through the concerned District Panchayats are entitled to contend that their services cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) notwithstanding the fact that their orders of appointment clearly stated that their employment will terminate on the winding up of the scarcity relief works. Is it necessary to follow the provisions contained in Chapter V-A or V-B of the Act for terminating the services of the petitioners on the promise that such termination amounts to retrenchment in law ? The orders of appointment issued by the District Development Officer Mehsana in terms provide that the appointments are made on purely ad hoc and temporary basis for the duration of relief works and shall automatically stand terminated on the closure of the relief works. Notwithstanding this condition of appoi





















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