SANKAR MUKHERJEE AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
There is no justification for excluding loading and unloading of bricks in the brick department from the purview of the notification; such exclusion is discriminatory as the jobs are allied, incidental and of perennial nature, violating Article 14.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Sankar Mukherjee and Ors.; Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 16 November 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Petition (civil) No. 2123 of 1982 / Original Jurisdiction, Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Petition allowed
- Legal Topics
- Contract Labour, Abolition of Contract Labour, Equality Before Law, Discrimination
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sankar Mukherjee and Ors.
Petitioner
Union of India and Ors.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 2123 of 1982 / Original Jurisdiction, Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Validity of exclusion of loaders in brick department from State notification abolishing contract labour
- 2 Whether exclusion violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Ratio Decidendi
There is no justification for excluding loading and unloading of bricks in the brick department from the purview of the notification; such exclusion is discriminatory as the jobs are allied, incidental and of perennial nature, violating Article 14.
Court Disposition
Petition allowed
Orders
- Words 'except loading and unloading of bricks from wagons and trucks' in paragraph 9 of the notification struck down as discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
- Petitioners and co-workers to be treated at par with effect from notification date with those doing cleaning and stacking in the brick department.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment