Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ... vs Central Organisation Of Tamil Nadu ... on 24 March, 2005

The Management Of Hindustan Lever ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Labour ... on 6 March, 2008

In the 4th judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent workman, in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees and Anr. 1997-II-LLJ 1043, a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the question as to 'whether non-enumerated misconduct can form subject can form subject matter of disciplinary action' has held that 'misconduct not enumerated in Standing Orders cannot be introduced by circular or memorandum and non-enumerated misconduct cannot be read into Service Standing Orders and employer can only seek amendment of certified Service Orders, to include non-enumerated misconduct.'
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - E D Rao - Full Document

Tasmac Oozhiyar Manila Sammelanam ... vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 29 April, 2025

(b)Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Central Organisation Of Tamil Nadu reported in 1997 (II) LLJ 1043 MAD “The Board resisted the writ petition inter alia contending that apart from the Conduct Regulations framed under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Board is also empowered to issue eirculars as and when exigencies warrant. Though the Regulation of the Conduct Regulations stipulated that in respect of matters in the Conduct Regulations for which there is a provision in the Standing Orders for the employees of the Board framed under the Act, the provision under the Standing Orders would prevail in regard to the employees governed b the Standing Orders.
Madras High Court Cites 133 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Singh vs M/S Techbooks Electronics Services ... on 9 February, 2015

Although the said judgment was passed in a case challenging the order of Employee's Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, the observations made therein are relevant in the present case, since it has been clearly held in the said case that "casual employee" employed even for one day or for more than one day or in connection with the work of the establishment against wages would not be excluded from the coverage of the act. Thus, the fact that the workman herein is holding an ESI card by itself does not give rise to conclusion that he was a regular employee of the management who had worked for a period of 240 days prior to termination of his services by the management.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1