Appropriate Authority - Judgment Search Results

Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate Gen ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.241 OF2017STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS DESIGNATED AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING & ALLIED DUTIES & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT

international Airports Authority of India Workers' Union Vs. Internati ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1992(2)SCALE648; 1993Supp(1)SCC229; 1992(2)LC686(SC)

ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. Dispute between two rival unions, one International Airports Authority of India Workers Union (in brief 'WU') and the other International Airports Authority Employees Union (in brief 'EU')

international Airport Authority Employees Union and anr. Vs. Internati ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2001(49)BLJR1361; [2001(88)FLR537]; JT2001(1)SC24; (2001)ILLJ549SC; (2001)1MLJ195(SC); 2000(8)SCALE207; 2001(1)LC258(SC); (2001)1UPLBEC259

Matched in: Parties international Airport Authority Employees Union and anr. Vs. International Airports Authority of India and ors.

international Airports Authority of India Engineers Association and or ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR348]; JT2001(10)SC5; (2002)ILLJ833SC; (2002)10SCC410

S. RAJENDRA BABU and DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.The appellant is an association of the employees in the International Airports Authority of India. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are employees of the respondent and are working as assistant

international Airports Authority Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. Airport ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT1997(4)SC757; (1997)IILLJ361SC; 1997(3)SCALE683; (1997)10SCC754; [1997]3SCR868; 1997(1)LC804(SC)

Civil Maintenance Workers (Employed at Staff Colony at Kalina, Indian Airlines) (W.P. No. 430/92), we think that the appropriate course to be adopted by he High Court would be to direct that the Board to examine the … Workers (W.P. Nos. 2641/92, 1256/96), Car-parking Clerks (W.P. No. 2362/90) (Employed at International and National Airports of Airport Authority of India), Electrical Maintenance Workers (W.P. No. 430/92) and Civil Maintenance Workers (Employed at Staff Colony at Kalina,

Airports Authority of India vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr

Court: Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ LPA 109/2016 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Archit Mishra, Advs.

National Highways Authority of India Vs The Competent Authority and Sp ...

Court: Chennai

JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU in National Highways Authority of India Rep by its DGM(T) and Project Director Project Implementation Unit-1, Chennai 1, 5th Floor, CMRL Building,

National Highways Authority of India Vs The Competent Authority and

Court: Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY National Highways Authority of India Rep by its DGM (T) and Project Director Project Implementation Unit-I, Chennai I 5th Floor, CMRL

National Highways Authority of India, Vs The Competent Authority and

Court: Chennai

JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU in National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by its DGM(T) and Project Director, Project Implementation Unit-1, Chennai 1, 5th Floor, CMRL Building,

Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Authority Under the Minimum ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: (2007)IILLJ750MP

the atrocities of intermediaries and to assign a positive role to the principal employer. The Act authorises the appropriate Government to abolish the contract labour. In the instant case, the Central Government issued a notification on March … Dipak Misra, J.1. In Writ Appeal No. 83/2006, the appellants, Steel Authority of India and its functionary, have called in question the defensibility of the order dated January 24, 2006