Madura Coats Limited vs Labour Court, Madurai And Anr. on 27 August, 1980
In Sri Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court and another, [1980-I L.L.J. 425] at page 429, it was observed as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.43 seconds)Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 9 March, 1999
Learned counsel has further relied upon the decision of this Court in Sri. Gopalakrishna Mills P. Ltd. v. Labour Court (supra) to substantiate his contention that the length of service of a workman is not relevant in the imposition of punishment for proved misconduct. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court the observations made by the Labour Court that the respondent-workman was in continuous service from October 6, 1973 for 11 years. From April 27, 1985 the services of the workman were terminated. It also observed that the punishment imposed on the workman was too severe. Learned counsel has argued that the Labour Court should not have taken into account the length of the service rendered by the workman in ordering reinstatement. Relying upon the above judgment, learned counsel has further argued that if a worker has put in a longer service, he cannot be taken to be licensed to commit misconduct. Leniency in the matter of punishment can only depend on the nature of misconduct and not on the question whether the workman is married or not and whether he has put in a particular period of service. Based on the above, learned counsel has submitted that the observations made by the Labour Court that the workman has put in continuous service should not be taken as criteria for ordering reinstatement.
P. Arumugam vs The Management Of Viralimalai ... on 11 December, 2000
7.6. If that be so, once misappropriation is proved and the assault of co-employee is also found proved by the Enquiry Officer in the instant case, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, merely on the ground of the length of service put in by the petitioner in the first respondent/bank management, as held in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court, 1980 (I) LLJ 425. as mere length of service of the petitioner would not be relevant in imposing punishment for a proved misconduct, nor the length of service of an employee could itself.be taken as a license to commit such misconduct. Under such circumstances, showing sympathy to the petitioner is not called for by this Court, as held in Janaiha Bazaar S.K.C.C.W.S.Ltd. v. Secy. S.N.Sangha, 2000 (II) LLJ 1395.
Workmen, Employed In Engine Valves ... vs Engine Valves Limited on 25 February, 1983
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills (P) Ltd. v. Labour Court [1980-I L.L.J. 425], recognises the power of the Labour Court to deal with the punishment imposed and the extent to which it could interfere, but does not deal with the point involved herein.
Air Lanka Ltd. vs John William Nathan And Another on 29 August, 1990
28. Considering the authorities cited by both sides, it is clear that in pursuance of the power conferred under Sec. 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court has discretion to interfere with the punishment imposed by he domestic Tribunal for valid and sound reasons. The only question is while exercising the power the Labour Court has to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case to decide as to whether reinstatement should be ordered or any compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be awarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision Sri Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. Labour Court and another reported in (1980-I-LLJ-425) and Seeralan v. Additional Labour Court, madras & another reported in (1986-II-LLJ-85) to the effect that once the charge was found proved there was very little scope for generosity to be shown or to bring into existence the minor punishment, that the motive of the workman in doing the act attributed to him is not material, that the length of service is not relevant in the imposition of punishment for proved misconduct and that the leniency in the matter of punishment would depend on the nature of misconduct. The Division Bench of this Court in those decisions did not interfere with the punishment of termination of service of the employees concerned.
Air Lanka Limited Represented By Its ... vs John William Nathan And Anr. on 29 August, 1990
28. Considering the authorities cited by both sides, it is clear that in pursuance of the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court has discretion to interfere with the punishment imposed by the domestic Tribunal for valid arid sound reasons. The only question is while exercising the power the Labour Court has to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case to decide as to whether reinstatement should be ordered or any compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be awarded. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills (P) Ltd v. Labour Court and Anr. (1980) 1 L.L.J. 425 and Seeralan v. Additional Labour Court, Madras and Anr. (1986) 1 L.L.N. 663, to the effect that once the charge was found proved there was very little scope for generosity to be shown or to bring into existence the minor punishment, that the motive of the workmen in doing the set attributed to him is not material, that the length of service is not relevant in the imposition of punishment for proved misconduct and that the leniency in the matter of punishment would depend on the nature of misconduct. The Division Bench of this Court in those decisions did not interfere with the punishment of termination of service of the employees concerned.
Engine Valves Ltd. vs Labour Court, Madras And Another on 27 November, 1990
In Sri Gopalakrishna Mills case, another Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the relevant principles which should weigh with the Court exercising power under Section 11(A) of the Act and it was held therein that the discretion under Section 11(A) of the Act has to be exercised judicially and in accordance with the well recognised principles including the nature of charges and the Court is also obliged to examine the circumstances of each case to see whether the reinstatement of the discharged or dismissed employee is not inexpedient or improper and refuse to order reinstatement where such a course in the circumstance of a case is not either desirable or expedient.
The Management Of Sri Ramakrishna Steel ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 21 August, 1995
In so far as the decision reported in Sri Gopalakrishana Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court and another (1980-I-LLJ-425) referred to by the Labour Court, it must be stated that the said decision actually went in favour of the management, since the Labour Court's award therein directing reinstatement instead of dismissal, was quashed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dharmapuri District Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 10 January, 1997
In Sri Gopalaktishna Mills Pw. Ltd. v. Labour Court (1980-I-LLJ- 425), a Division Bench of this Court observed thus at p 431 :
Virudhachalam Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. vs Labour Court And Anr. on 1 August, 1994
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the award of the Labour Court contended that the first respondent Labour Court, having held that the charges to be properly proved, ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment and in doing so, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court committed a grave error of law. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision reported in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court (1980-I-LLJ-425) and in Engine Valves Ltd. v. Labour Court (1991-I-LLJ-372)(Mds).