Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Management Of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd vs Workmen on 1 November, 1965

State Of M.P. And Ors. vs Mahendra Kumar Sharma on 22 November, 2007

3. There is no dispute about the facts of the case that on 1-12-2002 the respondent took active part in the Anti-Dacoity Operation with a gang headed by Hanni @ Hanif Musalman as in-charge of the Police Station, Jigana District Datia and thereafter there was an encounter with the gang and the respondent took active part in the encounter with the gang leader Hanni @ Hanif Musalman in which he was killed. It was further the case that under the Regulation 70-A of the M.P. Police Regulations of the Police Manual on taking active part in the distinguished Anti-Dacoity Operation, any officer is entitled for President's Police Medal for gallantry or he can be considered for promotion. Since the case of the respondent was strongly recommended by the departmental officer but was not considered and was turned down for grant of out of turn promotion by Screening Committee, though without assigning any reason, therefore, the submission of Shri Brijesh Sharma is that the State has filed this appeal on this legal point of principle that the Writ Court should only direct for consideration of the case by the Government and should not give direction that he be treated as promoted out of turn with effect from 27-5-2003 and in support of his submission, learned Government Advocate placed reliance on a decision in the case of Management of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen , in which it was held that:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

The Industrial Finance Corporation Of ... vs Delhi Administration & Two Ors. on 29 January, 1973

(66) Shri Nariman also pointed out that it was mentioned in the terms of reference that the Tribunal should indicate what directions are necessary in respect of the terms referred to it, and contended that the Tribunal has no power to give directions of any sort. As pointed out by Shri Jitendra Sharma, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated in Brook Bond (India) (Private), Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1966 (1) L. L. J. 402, what directions can properly be made by an Industrial Tribunal in a case where promotions are found to be unjustified on the ground of mala fides or victimisation. The Supreme Court observed :- "GENERALLYspeaking, promotion is a management function ; but it may be recognised that there may be occasions when a Tribunal may have to interfere with promotions made by the management where it is felt person superseded have been so superseded on account of mala fides or victimisation. Even so after a finding of a malafides or victimisation, it is not the function of a Tribunal to consider the merits of various employees itself and then decide whom to promote and whom not to promote. If any Industrial Tribunal finds that promotions have been made which are unjustified on the gorund of mala fides or of victimisation the proper course for it to take is to set aside the promotions and ask the management to consider the cases of superseded employees and decide for itself whom to promote, except of course the person whose promotion has been set aside by the Tribunal."
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

U.P. State Sugar & Cane Dev. Corpn. Ltd vs Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Ors on 26 September, 2008

He also relied on the decision in the Brooke Bond Limited case (supra) where in the opening paragraphs of the judgment the Tribunal had expressed the view that although promotion was a management 17 function and had to be left mainly to the discretion of management, in an appropriate case the workman had a right to demand relief when the just claim of the senior employees were overlooked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - A Kabir - Full Document

U.P.S.R.T.C. & Another vs Brij Nandan Lal & Others on 2 May, 2012

23. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the Brooke Bond case (supra) as also those of the three-Judge Bench in the Hindustan Lever case (supra). In our view, this is not a case of fitment depending on the nature of the work performed, but a case of promotion as and when vacancies are available. Both the Labour Court as well as the High Court do not appear to have considered this aspect of the matter with the attention it deserved and proceeded on the basis that this was a case where the respondent Nos. 2-15 had been denied their right to be categorised as permanent workmen on account of the nature of the work performed by them throughout the year. The High Court has, in fact, merely relied on the findings of the Labour Court without independently applying its mind to the said aspect of the matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - S Agarwal - Full Document

U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Mohd. Danish Naqvi And Others on 13 January, 2023

In Brooke Bond India (supra), the Apex Court had cleared the air and held that promotion is a managerial function. The Apex Court was of the view that in case an employee was not considered for promotion, the Tribunal at best could have remitted back the matter after setting aside the promotion and asked the Management to consider it. In the present case, there was no such dispute and the Labour Court had granted designation of the post as well as given the salary which amounts to promotion.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - R R Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next