Search Results for "Central Government employee"

2151 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2151 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Labour Welfare Fund Cess as Unconstitutional. Levy under Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 held to be a fee for services rendered, not a tax, and validly imposed on establishments including those with contract labour.

The petitioner, Mohan Dhotre, a resident of Mumbai, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the levy under the Maharashtra La...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Interest on Delayed Payment of Labour Court Award Under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Labour Court has power to award interest for period between date of award and actual payment to prevent miscarriage of justice.

The petitioner, Mrs. Prabhavati Ramgarib B., filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Cour...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Interest on Delayed Payment of Labour Court Award Under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Interest Act, 1978 and Article 226 of Constitution Invoked to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice.

The petitioner, Mrs. Prabhavati Ramgarib B., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Considers Suo Motu Reference on Summoning Advocates During Investigation; Examines Scope of Advocate-Client Privilege and Need for Guidelines to Prevent Coercive Summons. Court Addresses Legality of Direct Summons to Lawyers Under Section 179 BNSS and Absence of Judicial Oversight.

The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings following a reference from a two-judge bench in a Special Leave Petition challenging a notice issued ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Considers Writ Petition Against Industrial Tribunal Award on Retirement Age in Industrial Disputes Act Cases. Employee of Amalgamated Company Seeks Retirement at 58 Years Despite Unit-Specific Standing Orders of 55 Years.

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, operated two independent industrial establishments: the Hosur Road unit and the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Premature Retirement of Deputy Director of Health Services. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and found the premature retirement order valid based on adverse entries and public interest.

The petitioner, Dr. Mrs. Pratibha Gulhane, a retired Deputy Director of Health Services, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Const...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Upholds Dismissal of Employee in Fraudulent Appointment Case — Labour Court's Modification of Punishment Set Aside. Procurement of Employment by False Caste Certificate Constitutes Serious Misconduct Justifying Dismissal Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 11A.

The appellant, Sri Malurappa, was employed by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC). He was dismissed from service on 27.07.2005 on ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Adjudicates Appeals Against Company Law Board's Investigation Order Under Section 237(b)(i) of Companies Act, 1956. Appeals challenge the order directing investigation into the affairs of companies allegedly linked to Ketan Parekh in the 2001 stock scam.

The judgment pertains to 14 appeals filed by various companies alleged to be controlled by Ketan Parekh, the central figure in the 2001 stock market s...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal for Correction of Date of Birth in School Records at Fag End of Service — Delay and Lack of Credible Evidence Lead to Dismissal. The appellant failed to prove his date of birth as 29-9-1959 and the suit was barred by limitation under Section 96 CPC.

The appellant, Sri B.S. Mahesha, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree d...