Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Vasant Gopal Gurav And Anr. vs F.M. Lyla And Ors. on 4 March, 1968

M/S. Empire Dyeing vs Vasudev S. Kusam & Ors on 10 October, 2017

29. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Vasant Gopal Gurav & Anr. vs. P.M. Lyla & Ors. (1968) II LLJ 182 and in particular relevant paragraphs at page 184 and would submit that this Court after holding that after considering the gravity of misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the worker and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist, the employer would be fully justified in making the orders of discharge on payment of thirteen days' wages so that the workers may not earn a black-mark and may not be hampered in their service at any other stage. It is held that there may be a case which do not call for extreme punishment of dismissal and unless there is anything which prevents the employer from imposing a lesser punishment, there is no reason why the said Standing Orders should be construed in this limited way. He submits that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Press Trust Of India Employees Union And ... vs Press Trust Of India Limited And Anr. on 18 October, 2006

11. Counsel appearing for the First Respondent sought to place reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vasant Gopal Gurav v. F.M. Lyla 1968-II-LLJ-132. That was a case where a disciplinary proceeding was held against five workers in a mill on the ground of an illegal strike and for inciting an illegal strike. The enquiry officer held that the misconduct was proved but, having regard to the past clean record imposed a punishment of discharge from service with 13 days' wages in lieu of notice. The Industrial Court held that there were no mala fides nor any victimization and that under the standing orders an order of discharge could not be said to be illegal and improper. The Division Bench held that when the enquiry officer had found that both the charges were established, the manager was entitled to make an order permitted by the standing orders and those orders could not be challenged. One of the submissions that was urged before the Division Bench was that under Standing Order 22(1) the punishment envisaged was suspension not exceeding four days or dismissal without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. The standing order provided that in awarding, punishment the manager shall take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous record and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances. The Division Bench held that if the manager thought that the punishment of dismissal will be harsh, he was justified in making an order of discharge so that the workers would not be hampered in securing service at any other place. The Division Bench declined to accept that the only punishment that could be imposed was one of suspension or dismissal and held that unless there was anything which prevents the employer from imposing a lesser punishment, there is no reason why the standing order should be construed in the limited way.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1