https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111627 Refusal to provide alternative employment to certain employees of a company wound up, while similarly situated employees were absorbed, constitutes unequal treatment in public employment engaging Article 14 and impairs livelihood protections under Article 21; where no adequate justification for differential treatment exists, equitable relief in the form of directed absorption is appropriate. The operative effect ordered is that the State must provide employment to the affected applicants in any State department or public undertaking within three months to remedy the discriminatory omission and protect livelihood interests. en-us Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:38:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111627 Refusal to provide alternative employment to certain employees of a company wound up, while similarly situated employees were absorbed, constitutes unequal treatment in public employment engaging Article 14 and impairs livelihood protections under Article 21; where no adequate justification for differential treatment exists, equitable relief in the form of directed absorption is appropriate. The operative effect ordered is that the State must provide employment to the affected applicants in any State department or public undertaking within three months to remedy the discriminatory omission and protect livelihood interests. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111627