Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 22 November, 1999

The Cuddalore District Central ... vs The Presiding Officer on 13 June, 2013

Therefore, on the basis of the decision in Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer (2000 (2) LLJ 902), it is contended by Mr.G.Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner that where the Labour Court failed to consider some of the vital documents and where the Labour Court did not advert to reasonings of the Enquiry Officer, the award would be vitiated.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Madras Fertilisers Ltd. Rep. By Its ... vs Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour ... on 10 February, 2006

(x) Anna Transport Corporation v. Labour Court (supra): In this decision, this Court has held that the discretion vested under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not meant to be equated to charity and therefore set aside the award of the Labour Court for not properly exercising the discretion under Section 11-A. This ratio is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document

Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 1 February, 2000

In this context the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner brought to my notice a judgment of this court in a case reported in Anna Transport Corporation v. Labour Court, (2000-I-LLJ-411) (Mad). That was also a case where the workman unauthorisedly absented himself for a long number of days. Of course such unauthorised absence was preceded by several unauthorised absences, for which the workman was punished. On those facts a learned Judge of this Court was of the opinion that the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to show any sympathy, for such a workman, who is guilty of unauthorised absence. Relying upon this judgment the learned Council for the petitioner would contend that the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement solely on the ground of sympathy, is unwarranted and therefore it should be interfered with. The learned counsel for the second respondent tried to distinguish the present case on facts stating that the unauthorised absence, which led to the dismissal in the reported case was preceded at least by two punishments for a similar misconduct and that judgment may not be of any use to decline the relief to the second respondent in this case. I am afraid I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the second respondent. The learned Judge in the decided case has held that the workman, who is guilty of unauthorised absence, should not be shown any leniency, especially when he continues to absent himself and for a long period. In this case also the second respondent joined the services of the petitioner-Corporation only on January 10, 1976 and from January 11, 1976 he continued to absent himself up to September 26, 1976 though his absence up to March 18, 1976 was covered by three different leave letters. According to me the second respondent in this case also stands on the same footing as that of the workmen involved in the decided case referred to above except the fact that in the decided case the workman had suffered some punishments, whereas on the other hand, he had not suffered any punishment. That by itself would not in any way improve the situation in favour of the second respondent in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Management Of Tamil Nadu State ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And M. ... on 15 March, 2006

7. The power of the Labour Court exercising the discretion vested in Section 11A of the Act came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in Anna Transport Corporation v. Labour Court 1998(1) LLN 710. This Court has found that the discretion under Section 11A of the Act is not meant to be equated to charity. In my opinion, exercise of discretion by the Labour Court is without any basis and material evidence. Such exercise of discretion is unsustainable as the same is without any basis or reason. On the above grounds, the award of the Labour Court is unsustainable.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - D Murugesan - Full Document
1