Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Hubert Lobo vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 8 July, 1996

M V Channakeshava vs The Director (S And V) on 11 October, 2022

5. He relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hubert Lobo vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and others passed in W.P.No.11057/1996 reported in (1997)4 5 Kar.L.J. 524 in which referring to paragraph 5 he submits that when a punishment is imposed withholding the increment, there is a need to conduct an enquiry, without which the punishment would be illegal. Thus, he seeks for allowing of the petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Sultan Khan Son Of Hamidullah Khan vs The Principal, B.N. College Of ... on 21 September, 2007

206, [b] Hubert Lobo v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and Ors. 1998 I CLR 381, [c] K. Govindaswamy v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. 1998 II CLR 177, [d] Food Corporation of India v. K. Chamy, Calicut 1998 II L.L.J. 530, [e] Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and Anr. 1999 II LLJ 1413, and [f] Anand Regional Co-op Oil S. Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah 2006 III CLR 512.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A H Joshi - Full Document

The Management Of Ksrtc vs Sri M. Lokesh on 3 December, 2012

In the case of Hubert Lobo (supra), this Court has held that, withholding of increment with cumulative effect is to be treated as a major penalty. A Major penalty cannot be imposed without conducting a disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the decision of the Management, which had ordered the withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A N Gowda - Full Document

North West Karntaka Road Transport ... vs A Y Pawar Conductor on 10 September, 2013

8. This Court's decision in the case of HUBERT LOBO v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in 1997 (4) Kar.L.J 524 is of immense value in deciding this case. It is held therein that the withholding the increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment. A cumulative punishment means a punishment that accumulates 8 or accrues or adds together or a punishment, which continuously increases. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow:
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Hinchigeri - Full Document

The Management, Karnataka State Road , vs M Lokesh on 23 September, 2014

7. It is the case of the appellant that on 4.4.1998, the respondent was conducting bus bearing No.F.294 attached to Shimoga depot plying between Shimoga and Bhadravahti. Six passengers travelling in the bus were not holding tickets and the respondent had not issued the tickets and had to collected the fare from them. Ticketless passengers were subjected to pay fine and the office memo was served on the respondent and the matter was reported to the Management. The Management without holding any enquiry passed an order on 9.7.1988 i.e. withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The respondent having approached the Government as against the said action, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, after lapse of 10 years. The Tribunal taking notice of the record of the case set aside the punishment imposed by the Management on the respondent and held that the respondent is entitled to monetary benefits denied, consequent on the order of 6 punishment/withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect and directed to pay the monetary benefit with interest at 6% p.a.. Against which, the appellant has filed W.P.No. 33201/2011. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on a decision in the case of Hubert Lobo Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and others reported in 1997 (4) KLJ 524, wherein, this Court has held that, withholding of increment with cumulative effect is to be treated as a major penalty and a major penalty cannot be imposed without conducting a disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the decision of the Management. Further, the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the explanation offered which is not satisfactory, has held it is a case of minor punishment of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect ought to have been ordered by the Management and opined that the Tribunal is not 7 justified in directing payment of monetary benefits with interest at 6% p.a. that too when there was inordinate delay of more than 10 years in the reference being received by the Court for adjudication. Accordingly, proceeded to allow the said petition in part and quashed the impugned award therein and also quashed the action of the Management in imposing the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Further, the learned Single judge, keeping in view the record of the case and the nature of misconduct committed by the respondent, punished the respondent by way of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and also directed the appellant to regulate the matter. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for modifying the award is just and proper. We do not find any error or illegality. Nor we find any ground grounds to consider the relief sought in this appeal. Taking all these factors into consideration, 8 the instant appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Divisional Controller vs T M Gurumurthy on 9 February, 2017

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that imposition of a major punishment without holding enquiry is not sustainable and in this regard he would place reliance on a ruling of this Court reported in 1997(4) Kar.L.J. 524 (Hubert Lobo - vs - The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and Others). He would submit that the onus of conducting the enquiry prior to imposing punishment was on the petitioner and the petitioner having failed to conduct an enquiry, it was not open to the petitioner to impose the major punishment.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - G Narendar - Full Document

The North West Karnataka Road Transport vs S S Gudihal Driver Ksrtc on 16 July, 2012

In HUBERT LOBO VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MANGALORE AND OTHERS - 1997 (4) KLJ 524, this Court has held that if the punishment imposed is a major penalty, then a detailed enquiry has to be conducted. This Court has further held that withholding of an increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect is a major punishment. In the present case, one increment has been withheld for a period of three years without any cumulative effect. The respondent has pleaded that he is not responsible for the accident in any manner. In the circumstances, the disciplinary authority ought to have held an enquiry. I am of the view that the 5 order impugned does not call for interference. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

Karnataka State Road vs Siddalingappa on 7 November, 2016

2. However, the Tribunal having examined the award of punishment imposed by the Management, held the impugned order as illegal and unjust and passed the award dated 24.09.2012 vide Annexure-C. The impugned order of punishment was set-aside and the workman was held entitled to the monitory benefits which are denied consequent upon passing of the punishment order. To arrive at the said finding reliance was placed on the decision in Hubert Lobo Vs. The 4 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore reported in 1998 I CLR 381, wherein, it was held that major punishment cannot be imposed without holding domestic enquiry. Assailing the said award - Annexure- C, this writ petition was filed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A N Gowda - Full Document
1   2 Next