Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHANAGAR RAILWAY VENDORS UNION versus UNION OF INDIA

Supreme Court Cases

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MAHANAGAR RAILWAY VENDORS UNION V. UNION OF INDIA [1993] RD-SC 210 (12 April 1993)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

ORDER This Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India' held that the employees appointed in the statutory canteens as well as those engaged in non-statutory recognised canteens in the railway establishments are the railway employees and they are entitled to be treated as such. In other respects, this Court had not granted relief to other non-statutory employees while the writ petitions were pending. The petitioners' association representing the persons appointed by the commission vendors on the railway platforms on the various places also claime parity to be treated as railway catering service. This writ petition came to be dismissed and for review of that order the petitioners have filed this petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in another case Writ Petition No. 575 of 1987 etc., etc. the petitioners therein claimed that there will be an order in same terms as in T.1. Madhavan v. Union of India2. That judgment was rendered on September 8, 1987.

That was not brought to the notice of the three Judges' Bench when Khan case' was decided. After Khan case1 was decided the non-statutory non-recognised cases were directed for disposal. It would appear when W.P. No. 575 of 1987 etc.

were posted, instead of bringing to the notice of the Court of Khan case', Madhavan case2 was referred as having being covered. Accordingly, it was ordered thus : "There will be an order as in Madhavan v. Union of India2." Thus this Court was led to believe that the law holding the field is Madhavan's ratio (a two-Judge Bench) instead of Khan's ratio (three Judge-Bench) a binding precedent. Therefore what is prevailing law is the one laid down by this Court in M.M.R.

Khan v. Union of India1 and the direction given by this Court in the above writ petition referred to on September 22, 1992 would also fall in line with Khan's ratio.

1 1990 Supp SCC 191: 1990 SCC (L & S) 632: (1991) 16 ATC 541 2 1988 Supp SCC 437: 1988 SCC (L & S) 872 610 Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to the parity of treatment. The question of review does not arise. The civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed accordingly.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.