Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Strawboard Manufacturing Co vs Gobind on 6 March, 1962

The Management vs The Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 5 January, 2012

In the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind reported in 1962 Vol I LLJ 420, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that approval should be obtained before dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay. In the present case, the Authority had categorically held that 40 days delay was unexplained and therefore, it the time gap is too large.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

The Management vs The Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 2 February, 2012

In the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind reported in 1962 Vol I LLJ 420, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that approval should be obtained before dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay. In the present case, the Authority had categorically held that 14 days delay was unexplained and therefore, the time gap is too large.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

S.Rajasekar vs The Management on 30 July, 2021

In the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind reported in MANU/SC/0298/1962 : 1962 I LLJ 420, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that approval should be obtained before dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split- second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay. In the present case, the Authority had categorically held that 23 days delay was unexplained and therefore, the time gap is too large.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

The Management vs The Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 3 February, 2012

In the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind reported in 1962 Vol I LLJ 420, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that approval should be obtained before dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay. In the present case, the Authority had categorically held that 24 days delay was unexplained and therefore, the time gap is too large.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation ... vs S.Krishnan on 14 September, 2017

Sub-section (2)(a) on the other hand gives power to the employer to alter any conditions of service not connected with the dispute and this the employer can do without approaching at all the tribunal where the dispute may be pending. It further permits the employer to discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman where this may be on account of any matters unconnected with the dispute pending before the tribunal; but such discharge or dismissal is subject to the proviso, which imposes certain conditions on it. The intention behind enacting subsection (2) obviously was to free the employer from the fetter which was put on him under Section 33 as it was before the amendment in 1956 with respect to action for matters not connected with a dispute pending before a tribunal. So far as conditions of service were concerned, if they were unconnected with matters in dispute the employer was given complete freedom to change them, but so far as discharge or dismissal of workmen was concerned, though the employer was given freedom, it was not complete and he could only exercise the power of discharge or dismissal subject to the conditions laid down in the proviso. Even so, these conditions in the proviso cannot be so interpreted, unless of course the words are absolutely clear, as to require that the employer must first obtain approval of the tribunal where a dispute may be pending before passing the order of discharge or dismissal of a workman, for on this interpretation there will be no difference between Section 33(1) (b) and Section 33(2)(b) and the purpose of the amendment of 1956 may be lost". (emphasis supplied)
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

The Management vs Thiru T.V.Mani on 24 April, 2025

Reference was also made to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gobind, reported in 1962 (1) LLJ 420, wherein the Court rejected the contention that approval must be obtained prior to the order of dismissal. It was observed that the term "simultaneously" must be construed reasonably and not with an unrealistic expectation of split-second precision. What is required is that the three statutory requirements must be complied with promptly and without undue delay. In the present case, however, the approving authority has 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 03:46:41 pm ) W.P.No.5335 of 2020 categorically found that there was an unexplained delay of 24 days in filing the approval petition, and that the time gap was too long to satisfy the requirement of simultaneity under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Management vs B. Karunanithi on 2 April, 2025

4. As observed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the earlier two decisions in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gobind, AIR 1962 SC 1500, and Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. S.N. Modak, AIR 1966 SC 380, and expressly held that the view taken in Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand & Another, (1978) 2 SCC 144, does not lay down the correct position of law.
Madras High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next