REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

P. RAMANAIAH Appellant

V/S

TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MUNN V. ILLINOIS [REFERRED TO]
KHARAK SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHAVAN BOARDING AND LODGING BANGALORE THE ALL MYSORE HOTELS AND ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN VS. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY VS. DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI [REFERRED TO]
BEGULLA BAPI RAJU CHINNAM NAGABHUSHNAM CHINNAM SIVARAMPRASAD KAZA SEETHARAMCHANDRA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL KOVVURS:STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OLGA TELLIS VAYYAPVRI KUPPUSAMI VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CATERING CLEANERS OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY K RAMAKRISHNAN K D MOHANAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMSHARAN AUTYANUPRASI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANGANESE ORE INDIA LIMITED VS. CHANDI LAL SAHA [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN VS. REPTAKOSBRETT AND COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SAMATHA HYDERABAD ABRASIVES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this matter is listed in the Interlocutory matters, since both the learned counsel have agreed for the disposal of the main writ petition itself, this writ petition is being disposed of. The petitioners, in this writ petition, seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering their case for the post of Volunteers in respondent's Annadanam Canteen or any other posts as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint them by giving preference to their experience.

(2.) Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, is as follows.

(3.) Thus, Article 39(d) envisages that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Article 39(e) says that health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. Article 39(f) envisages that the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

Click here to view full judgment.

P RAMANAIAH Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address