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

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER versus K. SOMASETTY AND ORS.

Decided
2 May 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 46 · 1997 INSC 469
Also cited as
  • (1999) 9 SCC 229 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

p. 46, margin G

The respondent was appointed on daily wages in a project taken up by the appellant on July 25, 1986. The respondent was discharged from the work on its closure on January 15, 1989. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On a reference, the Labour Court held that the respondent is entitled to continuity of service with back wages since it amounts to dismissal. The order was confirmed by the learned single Judge of the High Court subject to payment of 50% of the back wages. Writ Appeal No. 878/96 was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 46–47, margin G

It is now well settled legal position that the Irrigation Department and Tele-communication Department are not an 'Industry' within the meaning of definition under the Industrial Disputes Act as held in Union of India v. Jai Narayan Singh, (1995] Supp. 4 SCC 672 and in State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Venna, JT (1996) 2 SC 455. The function of public welfare of the State is a sovereign function. It is the constitutional mandate under the Directive Principles, that the Government should bring about welfare State by all executive and legislative actions. Under these circumstances, the State is not an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise, since the Project has been closed, the respondent has no right to the post since he had been appointed on daily wages. It is brought to our notice that respondent has been reinstated. The ordr,r of the reinstate-· men! has been placed before us which indicates that at the threat of contempt of Court, the order has been enforced. It is stated therein that it is subject to the final order of this Court in this appeal .

p. 47, margin B

Under these circumstances, the appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Labour Court stands set aside. The order and judgment too stand set aside. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 47, margin E