Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 283 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Divisional Controller,Ksrtc (Nwkrtc) vs A.T. Mane on 27 September, 2004

The Management vs K.Mehanathan (Died) on 26 August, 2025

In such 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm ) W.P(MD).Nos.26173 of 2019 & 21708 of 2021 circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the management, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254 (Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T.Mane), the only punishment that could be imposed upon the delinquent against whom the charges of misappropriation have been proved, is that of the dismissal.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

Is Shri K. Muralidharan Not Workman vs Presiding Officer & Anr. 123 on 1 March, 2008

15. I have gone through the case law being relied upon by the management. With due respect to Their Lordships, the case law reported as Devendra Swamy Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra), Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) And Others Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Others (supra), Manoharan R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Another (supra), Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane (supra) and Sri Narendra Raja Textiles, Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. 1. S/ Aruchamy, 2.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Management vs N. Sethumadhavan on 16 June, 2025

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bebi Asha Naimoddin Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 10 May, 2024

*46* 917.24wp The position held by the Bus Conductor is one of faith and trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed with punishment of removal from service. This has been the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KSRTC Vs. A. T. Mane (supra); The Managing Director, The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra); Janatha Bazar (supra) and in catena of judgments. Once the employer loses confidence and trust in a Bus Conductor, it is unconscionable that such candidate can be pardoned by introducing such contingencies, as are set out in the Circular dated 18/04/2024, and that too without amending the D and A Rules.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next