Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Mill Manager, Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. vs Dharam Das, Etc. on 25 October, 1957

Guajrat Ambuja Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs U.B. Gadhe on 24 October, 2005

1. When the Labour Court found that the workmen had proceeded on illegal strike and that they were leading participants in such a strike, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment especially when it was established that the employer is a Public Utility Service and that the strike prolonged for a period of four to five months. Even in absence of any further proof of involvement of the workmen for other misconduct of unruly behaviour, abusing superiors officers, preventing officers from entering the premises, preventing coworkers from resuming duties and threatening the family members of the workmen and collecting union subscription illegally, it is doubtful whether the Labour Court could have reduced the punishment and substituted the order of dismissal by lesser punishment. As noted earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the action of the employer in dismissing the employee who were found to have gone on illegal strike in the decision of Mill Manager, Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. v. Dharam Das, Etc.(Supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Narayansingh Jugrajsingh vs Board Of Revenue on 5 October, 1961

10. Relying upon Model Mills Manager v. Dharam Das Nagpur Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 311 the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the wide, power of review under Section 9 of Act XII of 1949 should, upon similar considerations, be regarded as limited to the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. In the Supreme Court case, their Lordships were considering the scope of revision under Sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, which reads as follows:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.B. Gadhe & Ors. Etc.Etc vs G.M., Gujarat Ambuja Cement Pvt. Ltd on 28 September, 2007

14. When the Labour Court found that the workmen had proceeded on illegal strike and that they were leading participants in such a strike, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment especially when it was established that the employer is a Public Utility service and that the strike prolonged for a period of four to five months. Even in the absence of any further proof of involvement of the workmen for other misconduct of unruly behaviour, abusing superiors officers, preventing officers from entering the premises, preventing co-workers from resuming duties and threatening the family members of the workmen and collecting union subscription illegally, it is doubtful whether the Labour Court could have reduced the punishment and substituted the order of dismissal of lesser punishment. As noted earlier, this Court in Mill Manager, Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. v. Dharam Das, Etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 22 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 24 February, 1996

In support of their contention, the counsel at the first instance relied on Mill Manager, Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. v. Dharam Dass etc. (1958-I-LLJ-539). It was submitted that in the cited case it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the workmen participated in an illegal strike like the present one and the Apex Court upheld the orders of punishment when the management dismissed the workmen from service by exercising the powers under the Certified Standing Orders. Our attention was invited to the judgment, which is reproduced as follows at p. 543.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - R L Anand - Full Document
1