Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 386 (8.13 seconds)
Documents citing A.L.Kalara vs The Project & Equipment Corporation Of ... on 1 May, 1984

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

These are the conclusions which flow from Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., [1975] 3 SCR 619; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621; The Manager, Government Branch Press & Anr. v. D.B. Felliappa, [1979] 1 SCC 477; Managing Director, Uttar Pra- desh Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. Vinay Narayan Vajpay- ee, [1980] 2 SCR 773; A.L. Kalra v. The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Limited, [1984] 3 SCR 646; Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. & Anr. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. & Ors., [1985] 2 SCR 428; West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh & Ors., [1985] 2 SCR 1014; Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. etc., [1985] Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

It is true that the decision in A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. was based upon a concession made by the respondent corporation but the case of Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and another v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and others was that of a Government company for Hindustan Steel Limited is a Government company as defined by section 617 of the Companies Act as pointed out in Gurugobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal and others, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 311,315. The case of the Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. related to a question whether a disciplinary inquiry was validly dispensed with under Standing Order No. 32 of the Hindustan Steel Limited. Under that Standing Order, where a workman had been convicted for a criminal offence in a court of law or where the General Manager was satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it was inexpedient or against the interest of security to continue to employ the workman, the workman may be removed or dismissed from service without following the procedure for holding a disciplinary inquiry laid down in Standing Order No. 31. The order of removal from service of the concerned workman did not set out any reason for the satisfaction arrived at by the disciplinary authority but merely stated that such authority was satisfied that it was no longer expedient to employ the particular workman any further and the order then proceeded to remove him from the service of the company. In these circumstances, this Court held that the order of removal from service was bad in law. In the course of its judgment, this Court observed as follows (at page 560) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

R.Sivarajan Chettiar vs The Kerala Khadi And Village Industries ... on 1 June, 2011

11. It is settled that unless in the service regulations of an employee an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and impose a penalty on the employee. It is also settled that where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy, so that, any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as a misconduct to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee. The principle behind the said propositions is that since the disciplinary proceedings are likely to result in penal consequences to the employees, they should be put to notice as to what act would constitute and what act would not constitute misconduct. The question therefore is, whether the misconducts attributed against the petitioner would come within the scope of Regulation 3 of the Conduct Regulations. As noticed above, there is a categoric prescription in the Conduct Regulations that every employee shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. In other words, the Conduct Regulations require that every employee shall maintain the quality of being honest and be loyal to the employer in discharging the duties attached to W.P.(C).No.6908/2013 13 the office. When a person entrusted with cash is expected to act honestly and with loyalty, he cannot be heard to contend that misappropriation of the entrusted cash would not amount to a misconduct, merely for the reason that there was no prescription in the Conduct Regulations that he shall not commit misappropriation. Coming to the decision of the Apex Court in A.L.Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. [supra] on which much emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that in that case the allegation against the employee concerned was that he did not purchase a plot of land as also a vehicle, after having availed advances from the employer for the said purposes. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Conduct Rules of the employee involved in that case, there was a similar statement that every employee shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and do nothing unbecoming of a public servant. The Apex Court in that case noticed that apart from the said general statement, there was a specific rule in the Conduct Rules applicable to the employee defining the various acts and omissions which would amount to misconduct. It was found that the aforesaid allegations against the delinquent employee in that case would not come within the W.P.(C).No.6908/2013 14 scope of the misconducts defined in the Conduct Rules. It is in the said circumstances, the Apex Court held that the failure to keep the general standards of moral and ethical behaviour befitting an officer of the company by itself cannot constitute misconduct, unless the specific conduct falls within the scope of any of the enumerated misconducts defined under the Rules. The Apex Court also noticed in that case that the specified misconducts do not also prescribe violation of the general standard referred to above as a misconduct. If the decision of the Apex Court is analysed in the light of the general principles indicated above, it can be seen that on the facts of that case, the Court was not convinced that the employee concerned could reasonably be expected to know that disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him on the allegation that he has not purchased a plot after having availed an advance from the employer for that purpose. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, when the Conduct Regulations categorically prescribe that an employee shall maintain honesty and devotion in discharging his duties, there is no reason for an employee to think that misappropriation of the cash entrusted to him would not amount to a dishonest act, warranting disciplinary action. The decision of the Apex Court W.P.(C).No.6908/2013 15 referred to above, in the circumstances, may not be of any help to the petitioner. Further, unlike the case dealt with by the Apex Court, the Conduct Regulations in this case only prescribe the conducts expected from the employees concerned. It does not define any act or omission as a misconduct. As such, there is no merit in the contention that infraction of the Conduct Regulations would not amount to misconduct.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S.Raju Construction vs The Government Of India on 30 November, 2022

It was held: (A.L. Kalra case [A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corpn., (1984) 3 SCC 316 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 497] , SCC p. 328, para 19) “19. … It thus appears well settled that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executive/administrative action because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality. One need not confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action per se arbitrary itself denies equal of (sic) protection by law.
Madras High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

M/S.Raju Construction vs The Government Of India on 30 November, 2022

It was held: (A.L. Kalra case [A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corpn., (1984) 3 SCC 316 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 497] , SCC p. 328, para 19) “19. … It thus appears well settled that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executive/administrative action because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality. One need not confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action per se arbitrary itself denies equal of (sic) protection by law.
Madras High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

K I Vidya vs State Bank Of India on 4 July, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC:25737 WP No. 23938 of 2012 8.3 In the present case, this exposition must be differentiated and that in any event, the Apex Court, as observed in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd and Others Vs. T. K. Raju5, has emphasized that on more than one occasion it is reiterated that the decision in A. L. Kalra Vs., Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (supra) does not lay any inflexible rule and each case must be examined on its own merits.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next