Opposing the claim, the Management had filed a counter statement dated 22.06.2004. In the counter statement, they had admitted the cadre strength fixed under Section ... engaged on daily wages as per the requirement of the day against absenteeism of regular employes and leave vacancies. The wages for casual labourers were
statement dated
28.3.2000 in which it was stated that the training period of the second
respondent was extended due to poor performances and habitual absenteeism
purpose of introduction of Chapter XIV-A is set out in explanatory statement appended to the ordinance, which is as follows:
"In order ... credit societies, in the said Act."
13.A reading of explanatory statement read with the provisions of the Ordinance/Act will show that
pointed out by the petitioners in the reply statement that the first respondent had suppressed this information. They also pointed out that in the year ... again absented for 123 days. He was a chronic absentee and that no sympathy should be shown to him. Since the charges against the first
strength of the failure report, he filed a claim statement before the first respondent Labour Court. The Labour Court registered the dispute ... employment. It also found that he was not a habitual absentee and therefore, the dismissal imposed on him was disproportionate. Though the workman claimed that
submitted by the petitioner, the respondents were not able to impeach the statement regarding illness of his wife and her undergoing treatment at CMC Hospital ... whose wife was ill and was undergoing brain surgery and also the statement that he had met the Reserve Inspector as well as the Deputy
The Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The Presiding Officer on 2 March, 2010
Author: K
P.Venkatesan vs The Management on 23 February, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
society.
6. In the present case, the petitioner/management, in their counter statement, did not plead that the contesting respondents were employed by any contractor ... that such deployment arose due to the exigencies on account of heavy absenteeism and specific extra work.
7. But, the Industrial Tribunal found that
R.Venkatesan vs The Presiding Officer on 6 April, 2010
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K
