Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary Introduction In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses. The Government o
Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
The Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 1344.
The Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors, 1995 ||Case Summary
Introduction
In the present appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down some norms and procedures to be followed to get the correct results by the "Secret Ballot System" which is the method to examine which is the more powerful Union.
Facts
There were two registered Trade Unions in an Industry consequently, a situation arose before the employers to understand which was an powerful union or with whom they should bargain regarding terms, conditions etc. As a result, In the present appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down the procedure be executed to get the correct results by the Secret Ballot System.
Issue
What are the guidelines which laid down by the Court in the present appeal?
Supreme Court Order
The Court while understanding the importance of this issue, took opinions from other Trade Unions or Organizations before passing the following guidelines:-
The CLC shall fix the month of the election while the date of the election shall be fixed by the Returning Officer.
The Returning Officer shall notify the election schedule after the consultation with the FCI.
The Returning Officer shall conduct the election with the help of the FCI.
The Polling assistants may be selected by the Returning Officer among the FCI members.
The Court said the strength of all eligible unions will be decided by the "Secret Ballot System" under the supervision of the Chief Labour Commissioner (CLC).
The Returning Officer shall inform FCI to furnish the list of all the employees who work in the category of III and IV under the FCI (Staff) Regulations Act, 1971.
The Trade Union, which is registered under the Act for one year, is eligible to participate in the election.
The FCI shall display the voters list on the notice board and other visible places so that the person who gets any issues can raise them to the Returning Officer within the stipulated time.
The language of the ballot paper would be Hindi, English and the concerned regional language.
The signature of the workman or employee shall be obtained on the counterfoil of the ballot paper to ensure that the ballot paper has been put inside the box.
After polling, the ballot box will be opened and counted by the Returning Officer before the representative of each of the Union.
After declaring the poll results, the Returning Officer will send a report of his findings to the CLC.
The contesting Union would have the power to challenge the election result. Before the Returning Officer, the objections can only be raised after the election is over. The Objection shall be heard by CLC and disposed of within 30 days. The decision of CLC shall be final but subject to challenge before a competent court.
The Court directed the CLC and the FCI to hold the elections as per the procedure mentioned in this order.
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary Introduction This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway. For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme, and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme, Earlier the sharehol
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Comments
Post a Comment