Pairokar

By Parmanand Pandey This is the second part of my previous post which is completely based on my personal experience. The aforementioned workers-Durga Prasad Tewari and Subodh Prakash- got the cheque for Rs. 59,000/- each on 28th May of 2010 on the instructions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. When I asked them to pay my remuneration for working continuously on this case fore more than a decade as I have run from pillar to post; spent money on attending the dates; getting hundreds of pages typed on my expenses; got them photocopied, then they kept mum. I had worked on days for preparing the case and in research of case laws to argue in different courts. I also told them that generally remuneration is taken by the advocates irrespective of the fate of the case in the courts. But in this case, the fee is being asked when they have got the money. Although, it is highly improper to claim for the wages when the workmen are already in employment, which they are in this case, y

By Parmanand Pandey I am a victimised employee of a newspaper organisation. After victimisation I decided that I would use my law degree to fight for the cause of workers only; within and outside courts as well. The mode of fighting for the workers would be through trade unionism and legal cases. It is a matter of great satisfaction for me that almost all cases that were filed by me in different courts brought relief for the workers. It is not because that I am a very brilliant lawyer but because of the illegalities committed by the managements in their dealings with workers, which were set right by the courts. I can also say that my tenacity, honesty and sincerity to learn and understand the law and do the necessary research work for furtherance of my work helped me to a great extent in achieving the objective. It is a common allegation of frustrated workmen (frustration is very understandable) that their advocates have colluded with the managements and as a result of it they have los

Appointment of Justice K. G. Balakrishnan as the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission was spawned by TINA (There is no alternative) factor. In fact, this post has been lying vacant for the last more than a year after the retirement of Justice S Rajendra Babu. The main pre-requisite for the appointment to the post of Chairman of the NHRC is that the person should have been the retired Chief Justice of India and there were only three former Chief Justices namely: Justice Khare, Justice Lahoti and Justice Sabharwal, who could have filled the slot. Justice Khare and Justice Lahoti had already refused to take up the assignment and Justice Sabharwal’s name was not even considered for the post because if the controversies that surrounded him. In all fairness to Justice Sabharwal, it can be said that his judicial acumen was above average. He had delivered certain landmark judgements for example; Raja Ram Pal vs Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Kuldip Nayar vs Union

By Parmanand Pandey On assuming the august office of the Chief Justice of India on 11th of May, 2010, Justice S. H. Kapadia did two important things, one; he disposed off 39 Special Leave Petitions in 30 minutes that means, he took less than a minute for disposing off a petition. And the second thing which did was ,of course; more worrying for most of us and that was the warning to those who file “frivolous” Private Interest Litigation cases. Let me take the first point first. Anybody who is having any acquaintance with the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court will vouchsafe the fact that it takes lot of time and labour to file an SLP in the Supreme Court and the slaughtering of any SLP without affording any hearing is really very painful.There is no gainsaying that are some judges in the Supreme Court who want to put a sluice gate for filing of the SLPs. These Hon’ble justices are of the view that the wide ranging spectrum of Article 136 be narrowed down and it must be confined