Category: Labour Cases

Service and Labour Law–Compassionate Appointment–Appellant who was a minor applied for compassionate appointment – His case was not kept on live register–Authorities failed to discharge their duties which were binding in terms of provisions—Direction issued to offer appointment to the appellant in a suitable post with costs of Rs. 25000/- only.

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3082 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 4339…

Workman—Definition of—Nomenclature is not of any consequence. Whether a particular employee comes within the definition of workman has to be decided factually. Labour Law—Industrial Relation Executive—Plea that appellant was not doing managerial or administrate work, not accepted.

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2890 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal Nos. 6543-6544 of…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 16 – Daily wager – Regularisation of service – Respondents employed on daily wages – High Court directed that on basis of Notification G.O.Ms No. 212, respondent employees shall be regularised w.e.f. the date they completed five years of continuous service

  AIR 1999 SC 1601 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 1747 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DISTT. COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. T. DEVENDERPAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Accident–Only because Section 143 and 167 of the 1988 Act refer to the provisions of the 1923 Act, the same by itself would not mean that the provisions of the 1988 Act, proprio vigore would apply in regard to a proceeding for payment under the 1923 Act. Accident–Workman—The husband would not be a “workman” of his wife in absence of any specific contract.

  2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1929 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 856 of…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.