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

DR. DAMODAR PANDA ETC. versus STATE OF ORISSA ETC.

Decided
16 July 1990
Judges listed
RANGANATH MISRA, KULDIP SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 390 · 1990 INSC 203

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.

One of the matters which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to how the provisions of the inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, and particularly of section 20 thereof can be enforced. In the affiilavit filed by the Union of India in the Ministry of Labour it has been stated that in view of the scheme contained in secnon 20(3) of the Act that officer of the Originating State can make enquiries within the Recepient State provided the Recepient State agrees to such Officers of the Originating State operating within that State, the law has not become workable in a proper way. This is a beneficial legislation for satisfying the provisions of the Constitution and the obligation in international agreements to which India is a party. We do not think there can be any valid justification for not permitting the officers of the Originating State to hold appropriate enquiries in the Recepient State in regard to persons of the Originating State working as migrant labour in the Recepient State. We do not think that there is any necessity to hear the other States before making an ordP,r for enforcing section 20(3) and to give effect to the legislative intention contained therein.

p. 391, margin B

:Mr. Panda appearing for the State of Orissa has agreed that Orissa State has no objection to officers of any originating State holding necessary enquiries within Orissa when it is a Recepient State. We would, therefore, make a direction that to implement the provisions of the Act of 1979 referred to above every State and Union Territory in India would be obliged· to permit Officers of originating States of migrant labour for holding appropriate inquiries within the limits of the Recepient States for enforcement of the statute and no Recepient State shall place any embargo or hindrance in such process. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary of every State and Union Territory for compliance.

p. 391, margin E

We are cognizant of the fact that this order has been made without hearing the States other than Orissa and the Union Territories. In the event of any State or Union Territory is of the opinion that the direction should be modified, liberty is given to apply for modification of the order but until it is modified it shall remain in force. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with this order. No costs. T.N.A.

pp. 391–392, margin H

Petitions disposed of.

p. 392, margin B