Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 151 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Neeta Kaplish vs Presiding Officer Labour Court And Anr on 4 December, 1998

Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs Presiding Officer on 16 September, 2021

In Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer Labour Court (supra) the Management in that case contended that in spite of the direction by the Labour Court to the Management to lead evidence, it was open to the Management to rely upon the domestic enquiry proceedings Page 19 of 23 already held by the Enquiry Officer, including the evidence recorded by him, and it was under no obligation to lead further evidence, particularly as the Management was of the view that the charges, on the basis of the evidence already led before the Enquiry Officer, stood proved. It was also contended that under Section 11-A, the Labour Court had to rely on the "materials on record" and since that enquiry proceedings constituted "material on record", the same could not be ignored. The Supreme Court negatived this plea and held:
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B P Routray - Full Document

Dipakbhai Manilal Gohel vs Mannesmann Rexroth(India) Ltd,(Now ... on 24 June, 2021

In case of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another; reported in (1991) 1 SCC 517, the appellant was dismissed from service after the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court came to a conclusion that inquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper and therefore, called upon the management to produce the evidence on merit. The management, however, informed the Labour Court that it wanted to rely on the evidence already Page 12 of 26 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 01 11:14:42 IST 2021 C/SCA/3760/2012 IA JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2021 recorded during the inquiry proceedings and therefore, it did not produce any fresh evidence before the Labour Court. In such a view of the matter, the Apex Court held that when the inquiry has been held and found to be defective, the Labour Court/ Tribunal can call upon the Management or the employer to justify the action taken against the workman by fresh evidence, that the termination or dismissal order was proper. If the Management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any ground at any subsequent stage and if the opportunity availed of and the evidence is adduced by the management, the validity of action taken by it has to be scrutinized and adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Suraj Bhan S/O Sh. Mukhtiar Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 8 October, 2013

Workman replied the chargesheet Ex.MW­1/2 vide reply Ex. MW­1/3 stating therein that due to self illness workman could not attend to his duty and he has already given medical and application and he is innocent. Vide enquiry proceedings Ex. MW­1/4 (colly.) workman stated that he does not want to take assistance of any co­worker and further workman admitted the charges levelled against him. Workman, further, accepted reply Ex. MW­1/3 to chargesheet Ex. MW­1/2 as his reply. Lastly, workman stated that he does not want to say anything more in this case. Court is relying upon reply Ex. MW­1/3 to chargesheet and enquiry proceedings Ex.MW­1/4 (colly.) in as much as these documents / contents thereof have not been put to challenge by the workman in these proceedings nor these documents have been held to be not worth reliance / credence or suffering from any infirmity as regards their contents while holding the domestic enquiry conducted by management to have been vitiated. Also these very documents are being relied upon by the management to prove misconduct before the Court. Judgment of Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Courts & Anr. (Supra) has no application in this case in as much as contents of no part of Ex. MW­1/3 and Ex. MW­1/4 (colly) has been, as such, challenged by the workman. Workman himself is admitting Ex.MW­1/3 in his statement­of­claim and, also, it is not the case of workman that Ex.MW­1/4 does not reflect the true Page 16 of 24 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - LC - XI: KKD COURTS: DELHI Suraj Bhan Vs M/s D. T. C. ID No. 267/05 state of affairs taking place on 19.04.1993 in the course of enquiry proceedings. Infact copy of enquiry proceedings Ex.MW­1/4 (colly) was duly supplied to workman and Ex.MW­1/4 (colly.) bears signatures of workman in this regard. Workman in the statement­of­claim has alleged that he was served with chargesheet dated 23.03.1993 containing false allegations. This averment of the workman is very vague in as much as workman did not specifically plead as to in what particular matter(s) / aspect(s), the chargesheet Ex.MW­1/2 was containing false allegations. Even in the statement­of­claim workman reiterated the contents of reply Ex.MW­1/3 submitted by him in the course of enquiry proceedings. The workman nowhere in the statement­of­claim even pleaded that, the leaves availed by him were duly sanctioned by allowing his leave applications. Report Ex. MW­1/1 has also not been put to challenge at all by the workman in the statement­of­claim. Workman in the statement­of­claim not even pleaded that all the leaves availed by him were infact sanctioned leaves. Workman for the first time in his affidavit Ex.WW­1/R1A filed in evidence after the enquiry stood vitiated vide order dated 12.09.2012 deposed as under:­ ".................... 5. That the period of absence as shown in the chargesheet is not authorised but has been duly sanctioned by the management and no misconduct is made out against the deponent......."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra vs Suryabahn Avhad on 5 March, 2007

70. The decisions relied upon by Ms. Gayatri Singh have also been perused by me. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the propositions laid down in the case of the Workmen of Fire Stone Works v. Management which have been followed in in the case of Neeta Kalpish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. However, as observed in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd v. P.P. Munde reported in (1975) (31) FLR page 188, if the findings on the preliminary issue are worthy of acceptance, then the principles would apply. However, if they are vitiated and are perverse in the manner set out above, then, they cannot be upheld. The other decisions relied upon by her are also distinguishable on facts. It is not a case where the evidence was not legally acceptable or hearsay and purely conjectures. This is a case where legal evidence has been discarded and that is not permissible.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Gulam Mustaffa Kureshi vs Member Industrial Court And Ors. on 21 October, 2004

In our view the position of law is now well crystalised particularly in light of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another (supra) that the enquiry proceedings before the Tribunal is in two stages firstly the Tribunal is required to consider the preliminary issue whether the said enquiry is commenced in consonance with the said provisions and whether it is just and fair and not perverse. While considering the aforesaid enquiry it is not open to the Tribunal to permit the party to lead oral evidence in the matter on merits of the case. The Tribunal can permit parties to lead oral evidence to a limited extent to establish that there is any breach of the principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, clear that it is nor permissible for the Tribunal to permit the parties to lead oral evidence in support of the issue of perversity of charges. It is settled law that perversity has to be decided on the basis of the material and evidence available before the departmental proceedings. It is because the perversity is an inference which has to be drawn by the Court on the basis of material available before the Tribunal or the Labour Court and by such inference it can be held that whether findings given in the departmental proceedings are perverse or not. It is also possible for the Court to draw an inference of perversity if it has been found on record that on evidence available no prudent person could have arrived at such a conclusion as has been drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman that he is entitled to lead evidence even at the state of preliminary issue and establish perversity by leading additional evidence before the Industrial Court. The law as laid down is that after the enquiry is conducted at the preliminary stage and if the Labour Court comes to the finding that the enquiry is vitiated either by virtue of non-compliance of the provisions of natural justice and/or it is vitiated by virtue of perversity that the Labour Court can call upon the management to lead evidence before the Labour Court itself for establishing the guilt of the respondent-workman. In our view, therefore, to contend that there are two stages of complete round of litigation available for the workman first to lead evidence and establish that he is not guilty even at the preliminary stage and thereafter re-conduct the matter by leading fresh evidence in rebuttal if the enquiry is held to be invalid in law. In out view such a course is not open for the respondent workman. In our view, the law is clearly laid down by the of judgments of the Apex Court that the Labour Court does not jurisdiction to go into the merits of the complaint till land until a finding is recorded in respect of the validity of the enquiry before the enquiry proceedings. In the aforesaid view of the case, we find that the order passed by the Labour Court dated 27-3-2003 and by the Industrial Court in revision dated 15-11-2003 permitting the workman to lead oral evidence even in respect of the preliminary issue of perversity of findings before the departmental proceedings is unsustainable in law. We do not find any merits in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he is entitled to establish so called charge of victimisation even before the validity of the enquiry can be established before the Labour Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - V C Daga - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. Through Its ... vs Shri Manoj S/O Sukhdeo Deshpande And ... on 19 September, 2006

26. Adv. Mohokar relied on --Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, to urge that Complaint of Sudhakar Narad deserved to be allowed as there was no evidence adduced by Employer in defence. It is the case in which the Hon'ble Apex Court considered scope of right of employer to lead fresh evidence before Labour Court when domestic inquiry conducted by him is found to be vitiated in the light of Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act. The proposition canvassed by learned Counsel is in following paragraph: --
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Karunakaran N. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 21 December, 1999

Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in Neeta Kaplish case and the decision of this Court in Thanjavur Textiles case are not applicable to the facts of the case. I hold that the ultimate finding of the Labour Court is based on the materials on record. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said finding that the middle portion of the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Management vs Moorthy on 9 November, 2010

17. Therefore, section 11A of the I.D.Act, which has made a great inroad into the concept of Labour legislation which was originally the domain of the employer to decide the punishment in the enquiry, by shifting the same to the Court to decide otherwise regarding the punishment even while accepting the Enquiry Officers report. Therefore, it is an extension of the beneficial legislation given in favour of the workmen by transferring the power to the judicial authority for giving relief to workmen, of course, based on the Enquiry Officers report. In such event, as it is stated in the proviso, no fresh evidence shall be adduced. But, on the other hand, if the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the Enquiry Officers report is not fair and proper in the sense that opportunity has not been given, etc., the Labour Court gives one more opportunity to the employer to prove that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner and thereafter, decides the matter. In those circumstances, fresh evidence is adduced. This has been an established law throughout in India, as the Courts have held as above, while deciding about the term, material on record found in section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. That was the view expressed by the Honble Apex Court in Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another [1999 (1) LLJ 275], where it was held as under:
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next