Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 310 (1.40 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005

Jeevak Aushadhi Arogya Shetki ... vs Zolba Buddhuji Bandhate And Another on 4 September, 2019

"45. At this stage, it would be relevant to make reference to the cases of Government employees, who are protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If the punitive action leading to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank without holding enquiry is taken in case of Government employee, then no alternative is left for the Courts but to direct reinstatement with full backwages. However, in the recent judgments, the Apex Court has adopted little different route and permitted the management to hold departmental enquiry from the stage the illegality has crept in. In this behalf, readily available judgments are in the cases of State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, U. P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R. S. Pandey and another, (2005) 8 SCC 264, U. P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. vs. P. C. Chaturvedi and others, 2005 (8) SCC 211 ; wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in case of no enquiry or defective enquiry, proper relief is to set aside the dismissal with direction to ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 09:32:14 ::: Judgment 6 wp5478.19.odt the management to hold enquiry from the stage the illegality has crept in and that the reinstatement is to be treated for the purposes of holding fresh enquiry and no more. So far as backwages are concerned, the entitlement thereof is to make dependent on the final outcome of the fresh enquiry."
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Z A Haq - Full Document

M/S. Automobile Association Of Eastern ... vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... on 11 June, 2008

However, as a self-imposed rule of judicial discipline, the High Courts do not ordinarily entertain a writ petition when there is an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. The proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in A.P. Foods vs. S. Samuel & Ors. (supra), U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey (supra) and Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) cited by Mr. Sanyal is well-established.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Shaik Nanne Saheb, vs The State Of A.P, on 19 July, 2021

After elaborate review of the entire law regarding entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Another (referred supra), set-aside the judgment of both single Judge and Division Bench, and held that, when the jurisdiction is conferred on the tribunals and authorities under service law, the remedy available to the parties is elsewhere and concluded that the order of the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench is set-aside and directed the authorities to complete the enquiry form the stage where it was stopped within four months from the date of order.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Flex Engineering Limited vs The Customs, Excise And Gold (Control) ... on 10 January, 2007

In the case of U.P. Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr. . (para 11 to 24), Apex Court has set aside the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition on the ground that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition when the statutory remedy was available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unless exceptional circumstances are made out.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - R Kumar - Full Document

The Managing Director vs Sri B R Cheluvaraj on 22 January, 2021

12. After considering its earlier judgments in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra), Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M School for Girls reported in (2002) 10 17 SCC 293, U.P State Spinning Company Ltd. v. R.S Pandey reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 and Union Of India v. Y.S Sadhu, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 30 held that when an order of punishment is set aside because of infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, reinstatement cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The Court opined that whether an employer should be granted opportunity to hold an enquiry de novo or to complete the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated depended on the gravity of the delinquency involved and the magnitude of the misconduct alleged. The Court observed further that the departmental enquiry should not generally set aside on the ground of delay in its initiation as such a power is de hors the limits of judicial review. In the event the Court or Tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. The Court, therefore, observed that normally a charge-sheet or show cause notice issued during the course of departmental proceedings cannot be quashed by the Court. The same principles were applicable where there is a delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the Court or Tribunal must consider all the relevant facts and balance and weigh the same so as to determine whether it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the judicial proceedings should be allowed to be terminated on the ground of delay in their conclusion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aktarul Islam Kayal & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 December, 2020

With regard to maintainability of the writ petitions in the face of Rules 18 and 20 of the 2016 Rules, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603, Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India (2011) 14 SCC 337, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (2008) 12 SCC 675, U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S.Pandey (2005) 8 SCC 264 have been cited on the issue of granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution when an adequate, alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the writ petitioner. The Supreme Court found in those cases that the statutory remedy providing for a hierarchy of appeals under the specific statute was in the nature of an 'adequate' remedy which would first have to be exhausted before a writ court could intervene.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 33 - Cited by 8 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next