Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2086; JT1987(3)SC259; 1987(2)SCALE226; (1987)4SCC505; [1987]3SCR808
1. The genesis for these appeals by special leave, the special leave petition and the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is the grant of pay scales at the rates recommended by the Shiv Shanker Committee for the employees of the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking to only a section of the ministerial staff of the New Delhi Municipal Committee who happened to be working in the electricity wing of the said Committee at the relevant time. There is a good deal of factual material and historical background to be covered for a full and proper appreciation of the contentions of the appellants and the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other in these appeals and petitions. We will, therefore, concern ourselves with that exercise before taking up the contentions of the parties.2. In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short of NDMC) and the Delhi Municipal Corporation (for short the MCD). The NDM...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2098; [1988]63CompCas649(SC); 1987(3)Crimes209(SC); 1987(14)ECC17; JT1987(3)SC305; 1987(1)SCALE1301; (1987)4SCC48; [1987]3SCR840
1. Petitioner's husband, Shital Kumar, was detained by an order passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated February 28, 1986, made in exercise of powers vested under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA'). The petitioner made an application to this Court under Article 32 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 292 of 1986 challenging that order of detention. In the earlier writ application, on 15th of May, 1986, the learned Vacation Judge of this Court made an order for the release of the detenu on parole on the following terms:The detenu is released on parole until further orders on the condition that he will report to the Directorate of Revenue, New Delhi, every day and the Directorate will be at liberty to direct him to explain his conduct during this time.... In the meantime the respondents will be at liberty to make an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)4SCC697; 1987Supp(1)SCC688
1. We think, it is really unnecessary to go into the merits of this appeal. The orders of the Government of Uttar Pradesh identifying the backward classes for recruitment of posts of Munsifs were struck down on the ground that the backward classes had not been properly identified. We are told that subsequently another Commission had been appointed to go into that question and the Commission has submitted a report and it is stated to be under the consideration of the State Government. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC612
E.S. Venkataramiah and; K.N. Singh, JJ.1. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties we feel that the appropriate order to be passed in this case should be in the same terms as in P.K. Narayani v. State of Kerala1. The State Government is directed to take steps as early as possible to ascertain the number of vacancies that will have to be filled up by resorting to recruitment through Public Service Commission. Immediately after such ascertainment the State Government shall write to the Public Service Commission to hold an examination to select candidates to fill up the vacancies. Until a selected candidate is able to join the post to which he is selected the ad hoc employee who is now working in any post shall continue in that post. This order does not confer any other type of right on the ad hoc employees. We hope that the entire process of selection and appointment of fresh candidates will be completed within six months from today.2. If there are any candidates who are al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC611
Order 1. Delay condoned. 2. This is a petition challenging the award of the arbitrator appointed by this Court. Justice D.P. Madon, a former Judge of this Court was appointed as the arbitrator by the order of this Court. The order directed inter alia that the arbitrator would be free if he chooses to make either a speaking or a non-speaking award and be free to give reasons for his award. It appears that Justice Madon made the award on January 21, 1987 after hearing all the parties. The validity of non-speaking awards is under challenge in this Court and the question has been referred to the Constitution Bench of this Court, and is pending there. The award of Justice Madon is under challenge. It is contended that the award is bad and is a non-speaking award. On the other hand, it is submitted that by virtue of the order of this Court the learned arbitrator was not obliged to make any speaking award and thus he did not violate the provisions of law. It is well settled that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5. 1984 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Rev. No. 2330 of 1983. R.N. Trivedi, Additional Advocate General (U.P.) Mrs. S. Dikshit and C.B. Singh for the Appellant.Ram Jethmalani, Rajinder Sachhar, and D.N. Mishra for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySEN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated May 16, 1984 setting aside in its revisional jurisdiction an order of theChief JudicialMagistrate, Gaziabad dated November 3, 1983 directing the issue of process against the respondents on a complaint filed by the appellant under section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollu- tion) Act, 1974. The issue involved is whether the Chair- man, ViceChairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of Directors of Messrs Modi Industries Limited, the Company owning the industrial unit called Messrs ModiDis- tillery could be proceeded against on a complaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC417
ORDER 1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgment of this Court dated 23-1-19861 and in the interest of justice we direct the Union of India to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent from May 1986 to the end of May 1987. Such payments shall be made within four weeks from today. The respondent was offered a job of Lower Division Clerk by the Union of India vide the letter dated 14-5-1987 which according to the appellants, could only be offered in the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondent will be at liberty to accept or decline the job within eight weeks from today. If the respondent declines to accept the job then the appellants will not be bound to keep the post vacant. 2. With these observations, civil miscellaneous petitions are disposed of. Arising out of Civil Appeal No. 1213 of 1982 1 (1986) 1 SCC 675 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC417a
Sabyasachi Mukharji and; G.L. Oza, JJ.1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgment of this Court dated 23-1-19861 and in the interest of justice we direct the Union of India to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent from May 1986 to the end of May 1987. Such payments shall be made within four weeks from today. The respondent was offered a job of Lower Division Clerk by the Union of India vide the letter dated 14-5-1987 which according to the appellants, could only be offered in the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondent will be at liberty to accept or decline the job within eight weeks from today. If the respondent declines to accept the job then the appellants will not be bound to keep the post vacant.2. With these observations, civil miscellaneous petitions are disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990SCC(Cri)626
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. Though the matter has been listed for preliminary hearing, we heard Mr. Ramamurthy in support of the appeal and Mr. Soli J.Sorabjee, for the respondent, on merits to find out whether there was anything substantial which would require examination on admission of the appeal2. Three contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Ramamurthy(1) Consent of the Advocate General had not been obtained in the matter to initiate the proceedings;(2) The appellant had offered apology which fact has been noticed by the High Court in its judgment, but effect has not been given to it; and(3) Circumstances existed in the case which had agitated the appellant and that deserved consideration of the High Court3. So far as the first contention is concerned this question was not raised before the High Court and Mr. Ramamurthy wanted to place the papers before us to show that there is merit in the contention of the appellant. We are not permitting Mr. Ramamu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1956; JT1987(3)SC213; 1987LabIC1648; (1988)ILLJ138SC; 1987(2)SCALE187; (1987)4SCC38; [1987]3SCR784; 1987(2)LC486(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the Judgment dated 8.7.1985 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 488 of 1968 on the file of the High Court of Bombay holding that the appellant was bound to comply with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the scheme thereunder and to make contributions in respect of its employees working in its workshop at Antop Hill, Wadala in Bombay.2. The appellant is a company which is carrying on business as 'engineers and engineering contractors' and is engaged in building and construction industry. By the Notification bearing No. GSR 1398 published in the Gazette of India dated 26.9.1964 (Part II, Section a 3(i), page 1546) issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, the Act was extended to establishments of engineers and engineering contractors not being exclusively engaged in building and construction industry. By the notice dated 11th October, 1967 the Regional...
Tag this Judgment!