Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. ETC. versus VIJA Y KUMAR UPADHYA Y AND ANR. ETC.

Decided
17 January 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 369 · 1997 INSC 36

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

.Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 369, margin F

Admittedly, the respondents came to be appointed on ad hoc basis pursuant to writ petition filed earlier by many others. The High Court by its judgment dated 4.2.1991 in Writ Petition No. 29537/90 had allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the retrenchment and directed regularisation of their services. Some of the respondents, admittedly, are senior to those who had the benefit of the order of regularisation as confirmed by this Court as on May 10, 1991. Consequently, following the earlier judgment, the High Court in the impugned order allowed the writ petitions with similar directions .. Thus, these appeals by special leave have been filed.

pp. 369–370, margin G

In view of the fact that the earlier orders of this Court have become final, the respondent are entitled to regularisation of their services. The learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice that since subsequently there was a development after the orders passed by th.is Court, namely, some of the establishments have been handed to the private sector and some of them are in the process of being wound up, the orders passed earlier by the· High Court as confirmed by this Comt and the present order would cause hardship to the appellant- Corporation. We do not think that we can go into that aspect of the matter particularly, when the order in favour of some of the employees has attained finality. Similarly the respondents are entitled to the same benefit.

p. 370, margin A

However, if there is any difficulty in working out, it will be open to the Corporation to convene a tri partite meeting consisting of workers' Union, one of the officers of Labour Department and an officer of the appellant-Corporation to thrash out the problems and arrive at an amicable . settlement to diffuse and sort out the above difficulty.

p. 370, margin D

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. In view of the above directions,. the direction for contempt issued by the High Court may not be enforced. However, the appellant-Corporation shall regularise their service and it will be subject to the suggestions made hereinbefore. No costs. G.N. Appeals are dismissed.

p. 370, margin E