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

2015 Supreme(UK) 148

SUDHANSHU DHULIA
ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate
For the Union of India : Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner No. 1 before this Court is a registered federation, petitioner No. 2 is also a trade union which is affiliated to federation and petitioner No. 3 is one of the casual workers in Border Road Orgainsation (from hereinafter referred to as “BRO”). It is an admitted fact that the BRO is an integral part of Indian Army.

2. The members of petitioner No. 1 – federation, petitioner No. 2 – trade union and petitioner No. 3 claim to be working as casual workers with the BRO in various projects and establishment of BRO in the State of Uttarakhand, which are in the Border areas such as Uttarkashi, Pithoragarh, Chamoli etc. They claim regularization of their services. Their representations in this regard to the concerned authority have been made by the petitioners but in vain. The petitioners now rely upon a decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Defence Civilian Workers Association Vs Union of India & others (SWP No. 432 of 2000 decided on 06.02.2002) and also a judgment of Division Bench of Guwahati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 1996.

3. As per the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court wherein direction was g










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