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

2009 Supreme(All) 1604

ARUN TANDON
SUMANT KUMAR DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
NARENDRA SRIVASTAVA,

ARUN TANDON, J.

The State Government vide notification dated 13. 04. 00 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Lucknow which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 48 of 2000:

"kya Sevayojko Dwara Apne Shramik Sumant Kumar Dubey putra Shri Ram Sagar Dubey Ko Karya Prabharit Amin (Seench Paryavekshak) Ka Padnam Na Diya Jana Uchit Evam Vaidhanik Hai? Yadi Nahi, To Sambandhit Shramik Kya Hitlabh/chatipurti Pane Ka Adhikari Hai Kis Tithi Se Tatha Kis Anya Vivram Sahit?

The Labour Court after examining the pleading of the parties has proceeded to record a categorical finding to the effect that the petitioner was never appointed as Amin (Seench Paryavekshak) after following the procedure prescribed for appointment on the said post neither any advertisement was made nor any selection took place. It has, therefore, been held that the appointment of the petitioner was de hors the rules and thereafter the reference qua his claim for regularization has necessarily to be answered in negative. The Labour Court has also refused the relief of salary qua the post of Amin (Seench Paryavekshak ). Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of








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