9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State or its instrumentalities have been frowned upon and struck down by this court as offending Art. 14. - Civil Appeal No. 562 of 1985 - - - Dated:- 26-2-1985 - REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA, VENKATARAMIAH, E.S., AND MISRA, R.B., JJ. For the Appellant : Somnath Chatterjee, H. K Puri. For the Respondent : S. N. Kacker, ,4. K Ganguli. JUDGMENT CHINNAPPA REDDY, J Special leave granted. The West Bengal State Electricity Board is the principal appellant in this appeal by special leave which we have just now granted. The first respondent, a permanent employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board, filed the writ petition out of which the appeal arises in the Calcutta High Court to quash an order dated march 22, 1984 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... temporary employee, his service may be terminated by serving of- (a) one month s notice on other side or on payment of a month s salary in lieu thereof; or (b) notice on either side for the period specified in the appointment order or contract or on payment of salary in lieu thereof, as the case may be. (c) the service of a temporary employee shall also be deemed to have been terminated automatically if the period of extraordinary leave without pay and/or of unauthorized absence from duties exceeding(s) a maximum period of 90 days. "34. in case of a permanent employees, his services A may be terminated by serving three months notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu thereof." Contrasting Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion whether the rule offended art 14 of the Constitution. Since then Art. 14 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court and conferment and exercise of arbitrary power on and by the State or its instrumentalities have been frowned upon and struck down by this court as offending Art. 14. In S. S. Muley v. J.R. D. T(Tata and Ors .([1979] 2 S.L.R. 438) P. B- Sawant, J- of the Bombay High Court considered at great length Regulation 48 (a) of the Air India Employee s Service Regulations which conferred similar power on the Corporation (1). as Regulation 34 confers on the Board in the present case. The learned judge struck down Regulation 48 (a) and we agree with his reasoning and conclusion. In Workman, Hindustan Steel Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
