Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing The Management Of The Express ... vs The Presiding Officer,Labour Court, ... on 18 December, 1963

Calcutta State Transport Corporation ... vs G.K. Bhattacharya And Ors. on 16 March, 1988

16. Mr. Mitra tried to distinguish by referring Management of the Express News Papers (Pvt. Ltd.) v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, (Supra) which was also cited by Mr. Banerjee. But we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mitra. As in the instant case of the Management of the Express News Papers, the concerned employee, one, Mr. Brain Bobb, who was working journalist, was appointed on probation on 28-2-1957 for six months in the first instance. On a specific stipulation that during the period of probation, the service would be confirmed on completion of the probationary period satisfactorily. Before expiry of the probationary period of the six months, the management found the working of the said Journalist unsatisfactory and probationary period was terminated on 11th July, 1957. It was contended in the case of Management of the Express News Papers, that High Court was wrong in law in thinking that once the period of six months expired, Mr. Bobb still continued to be in service of the appellant as a probationer. On behalf of the court K. C. Das Gupta, J, observed that, "In our oninion, we have no doubt about the position in law that an employee appointed on probation for six months continues as a probationer even after the period of six months if at the end of the period his service had either not been terminated or he is confirmed." It appears clear to us that without anything more, an appointment on probation for six months gives the employer no right to terminate the service of an employee before six months had expired, except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient reasons in which case, even the services of a permanent employee could be terminated. At the end of the six months period, the employer can either confirm him or terminate his service, because his services were found unsatisfactory. If no action is taken by the employer, either by way of confirmation or by way of termination, the employee continues to be in services as a probationer. So far the instant case in concerned, the respondent petitioner was allowed to continue by an express order of extension and that too upto a period of two years and within the extended period of probation, the probationary period was terminated. Therefore, the contentions of Mr. Mitra, cannot be accepted.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wani vs Presiding Officer & Ors. on 26 October, 1994

38. It is on the basis of the above facts and circumstances that the learned College Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the order of termination of services of the respondent No. 2 was not by way of termination simpliciter of the services of probationer but was by way of punishment and it could not have been passed without holding proper departmental enquiry against him in which it was necessary to give him an opportunity to defend against the said charges. The above conclusion drawn by the College Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be said to be pervious. It is well-settled that in its writ jurisdiction, the High Court should not interfere with the view on facts taken by the subordinate Court or Tribunal only because some other view is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. See para 12 of the Judgment in Express Newspapers case cited (supra). The view taken by the College Tribunal cannot, therefore, be interfered with.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Stanley Mendex vs Glovanola Binny Ltd. And Ors. on 3 April, 1968

In Express Newspapers, Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras 1964-I L.L.J. 9, the employee concerned had been discharged during the currency of the period of his probation in purported exercise of a power reserved with the employer to terminate the employment even during the probationary period without assigning any reasons. Even in dealing with such a case their lordships observed thus at p. 1]:
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Ram Pravesh Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 November, 2000

The decision of the Apex Court as relied upon the appellant in the case of the Management of the Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd., Madurai v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and Anr. (supra), in our view, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case even after expiry of the period of probation, the service of the employee concerned was neither terminated nor confirmed. That apart, there was clear stigma in the letter of termination. In that background, it was held that an employer had no right to terminate the services of the employee before the period of probation had expired except on the ground of misconduct or for sufficient reasons in which case even the services of a permanent employee can be terminated.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thomson Reuters India Private Limited vs Ld Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr on 30 September, 2021

In Express Newspapers v. Labour Court, 1963 SCC OnLine AP 254, Respondent was working as a journalist and was dismissed by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and reference was made by the Government under the ID Act. This was challenged by the Petitioner / Management on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The contention was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that all provisions of the ID Act, as if the matter so referred was specified in Schedule II of the ID Act, would apply and the Labour Court would have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Delhi High Court Cites 123 - Cited by 50 - J Singh - Full Document

Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Jagdish Ram And Anr. on 21 January, 2000

In support of his contention, Sri Parihar has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kumar Bairwa v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. 1989 (1) RLW 675, wherein after placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Express Newspaper (Private), Ltd., Madurai v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Madurai, and Anr. AIR 1964 SC 806 : 1964-I-LLJ-9, it has been held that the services of the probationer cannot be terminated before expiry of the initial probation period. Terminating the services of the petitioner before completion of two years of probation period itself makes it evident that he has been discharged/terminated on the ground of misconduct.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Clemend V. Fernandez vs Giovanola Binny Co. Ltd. on 1 April, 1971

In The Express Newspapers case the Supreme Court did not say that the management can refuse to confirm an employee after the period of probation mala fide, and discharge him. On the other hand, the indication in the judgment is that he must be confirmed, if his work and conduct are satisfactory. As we have said, we are unable to perceive any distinction between cases of termination of probation before the period of probation has expired and cases where the employer exercises his so called inherent right to confirm or terminate the employment after the period of probation. If in the former cases the contractual power to terminate probation is exercised mala fide and an Industrial Tribunal can interfere and set aside the order, the same result will follow in the latter case also if the power is exercised mala fide.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next