LexLords Simranjeet Singh NRI Legal Services By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services, https://lexlords.com/nri-legal-services-in-united-states-of-america-usa/. from October 12, 2006 to October 28, 2006. The suggestion, that the persons gathered at the place of occurrence had lathis on their hands, and that, they had inflicted injuries on accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram with lathis, was also denied. Another significant feature which has to be kept in mind is that between August 01, 2005 and October 12, 2006, applications of many employees had been accepted and many out of them had even been offered their terminal dues.

Both the orders passed NRI legal services (learn the facts here now) by respondent No. The creation of the fund would depend upon the number of applications; the cost of the Scheme; Clause (5) of SBPVRS gave fifteen days' time to the employees to opt for the Scheme and under clause (8) a period of two months is given to the management to work out the Scheme. Under such Schemes, time is given to every employee to opt for voluntary retirement and similarly time is given to the management to work out the Scheme.

423 We desire to point out that, the order which the Government purported to make in this caseunder section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act is notone in conformity with the provision of that section. Thus, we find that there are two distinct groups of employees who had submitted their applications for VRS. , himself), because they needed to kill him. The High Court upon such- question being referred applied its mind to the precise question and came to the conclusion that there was no.

Our Constitution has given us ample protection against the executive in relation to all the three sovereign powers of the State. Second set of employees are those who submitted their options when another chance was given to them, i. Since the said Schemes are funded schemes, the management is required to create a fund. Somayya on behalf of the firm that the finding of the Commissioner that the firm was not paid in cash in the prior years was set aside by the Tribunal and being a finding of fact ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court.

It is contended by Mr. We hold, therefore, that the petitioners have not made out a case for breach of any fundamental right. The suggestion, that the villagers were chasing the accused and the co-accused, was denied. 652 of our article 31(1), as I apprehend it, are the same as those of the Magna Charta. He also asserted, that the accused- appellant " Brij Lal, asked Mohan Ram " PW-1, to send forward Mohan Lal " PW-15 (i.

Therefore, there is an acquity and sharpness in the submissions of the Corporation that it cannot be treated as extension of the earlier Scheme. In view thereof, insofar as first set of employees are concerned, they could withdraw their option, before it was accepted, by August 01, 2005 and not thereafter. He deposed, that it was not possible for anyone to catch the accused- appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram, because all were empty handed.

In fact, instead of promulgating the VRS Scheme all over again, easy way was found by making amendment in a particular clause stating that application presented after October 28, 2006 shall not be considered. During his cross-examination Mohan Lal " PW-15 deposed, that the crowd comprised of 20 to 25 men, 10 to 15 women and some children, when the firing had taken place. Mohan Lal - PW-15 reiterated, that none of the villagers was armed with any weapon.

I are perfectly valid and within jurisdiction. This small window was opened for a period of 17 days for those employees who had not submitted their applications and they were afforded another chance. If in the opinion of the Board there is sufficient reason for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention for such period as it thinks proper. First group was the one which exercised its option between July 01, 2005 to August 01, 2005.

The firm had raised this question before the Tribunal at the time of the reference and had contended that no question of law arose from its order, as it was concluded by finding of fact. It is only on October 12, 2006, another opportunity was given to the rest of the employees to submit their applications and the period during which such an application for voluntary retirement could be submitted was from October 12, 2006 to October 28, 2006. In response to his denial, Mohan Lal " PW-15 stated, that the accused-appellant " Brij Lal shouted, that the accused would kill each one of those who were helping Mohan Lal " PW-15.

At the same time, the main reason was to attract more such employees to opt for VRS as the Corporation had decided to close down its operations and wanted its employees to take an honorable exit with 'golden handshake'. Section 11 lays down what action the Government is to take after the Advisory Board has submitted its report. The Tribunal, however repelled this contention observing that the question was one of ,law, as it related to the existence of any material for the finding.

We accordingly' dismiss the petition with costs to the first respondent.