Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12938 (1.83 seconds)
Documents citing Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

Then, it was submitted by her that in case of an employer who had made all the necessary investi- gation and the employee concerned has been fully heard before the order 01' termination and if the decision of Central Inland Water's case was applied, then even such a case would be a case of illegal termination, considering that there would be no power to terminate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat vs Shamrao Vithal Coop. Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 31 March, 1989

In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) the validity of similar power of termination of employment was considered by the Supreme Court. Under Rule 9(i) of the "Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd., Service. Discipline and Appeal Rules", the employment of a permanent employee was "subject to termination on three months' notice on either side" or by payment of "three months' basic pay and dearness allowance, if any, in lieu thereof". The provision was identical to Clause 4 of the Contract of Employment impugned in this petition. Since the Bank has no rules governing disciplinary action in the case of delinquent officials, there is no question of following the rules. It is the case of the Bank that the Petitioner is a trouble-maker. (Paragraphs 20 and 51 of the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 24th August, 1988). According to them, there exist good reasons for termination but instead of resorting to those "reasons" they chose to resort to Clause 4 for the purpose of getting rid of the Petitioner. (Paragraph 26 of the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 24th August, 1988). In a nutshell, there is no dispute that the Bank considers the Petitioner guilty of the acts disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply. Although the Bank calls its act "termination simpliciter", it has chose this course because the Petitioner is arrogant, incites executives against the Chairman and Directors, blocks the passage of their cars and so on. In other words, it has dismissed him because of such conduct. Therefore, in my opinion, the Bank has terminated the services of the Petitioner ostensibly under Clause 4 of the Contract, but really with a view to penalise him for the acts already referred to. It is elementary that before a person is condemned by punishment, he should know why he is being condemned and he should be heard before he is actually punished. There is, thus, clear breach of the principles of natural justice Irrespective of whether Clause 4 violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, on the admitted facts, the Bank has committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. The petitioner's services can be terminated under Clause 4 of the Contract. No rules governing disciplinary action have been shown to me. Even if there exist such rules, it would not affect the interpretation of the validity of the Clause. Thus, Clause 4 confers on the Bank the power to terminate the employment without specifying when and in what circumstances the power may be exercised. It is needless to say that Clause 4 can be used where the post is abolished, the work is unsatisfactory or the employee is guilty of misconduct. Under Clause 4 of the Contract, services can be terminated without assigning any reason even if there exist reasons, as indeed the Bank did in this case. What considerations should be taken into account for resorting to the Clause 4 is not clear. Thus, it confers on the Bank an absolute, arbitrary and unguided power of terminating employment. It violates one of the two great rules of natural justice - the audi alteram partem rule.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. & Anr. vs Shri T.S.Mokha on 25 January, 2012

In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex court in Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V.Sadasivan & Ors. (Supra), no doubt is left regarding the applicability of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr. (Supra) and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors.‟ (Supra), only on the undertakings, corporations and Government companies and not a private company.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - P Rani - Full Document

Kewal Krishan & Ors. vs Delhi Vidyut Board & Anr on 23 May, 2023

In Brojo Nath Ganguly [Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 429] , it was pointed out what courts should do in such a matter thus : (SCC pp. 215-16, para 89) "89. Should then our courts not advance with the times? Should they still continue to cling to outmoded concepts and outworn ideologies? Should we not adjust our thinking caps to match the fashion of the day? Should all jurisprudential development pass us by, leaving us floundering in the sloughs of 19th century theories? Should the strong be permitted to push the weak to the wall? Should they be allowed to ride roughshod over the weak? Should the courts sit back and watch supinely while the strong trample underfoot the rights of the weak? We have a Constitution for our country. Our Judges are bound by their oath to "uphold the Constitution and the laws". The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Article 14. This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualise the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. In today's complex world of giant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14448/2006 Page 25 of 37 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:26.05.2023 20:11:36 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3552 corporations with their vast infrastructural organisations and with the State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations which result in unfair and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its own facts and circumstances."
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Naresh Kumar vs Eureka Forbes Limited And Ors on 18 April, 2026

Learned Single Judge has preferred not to enter into discussion on the issue about the constitution of the Appellant company and to consider whether the judgment of Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr. (Supra) and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors.‟ (Supra), could be made applicable to the facts of this case where the relationship was purely contractual.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V. Sadasivan And 36 Others vs Binny Limited Represented By Its ... on 2 December, 1997

The decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in Water Transport Corporation Ltd., v. Broo Nath, ; O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourish Development Corporation Ltd., and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, have declared the position of law beyond doubt that a Rule or Clause in the contract or Agreement of Service which entitles the Management to terminate the services of an employee by merely giving one calendar month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of such notice would be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that such provision would also be opposed to public policy and violative of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioners, even if relegated to the relief of suit or the Industrial Dispute in the labour court, as it may deem fit, there could be no difficulty for those forums to strike down such a rule or declare such a clause to be void and unenforceable and it may not involve or necessitate any serious exercise or effort or any detailed enquiry to strike down such a rule or declare void such a clause, even in an agreement of service. The determination of the validity of such a clause as noticed above does not involve any factual investigation or appreciation of evidence and adjudication of factual issues. Consequently, instead of driving the petitioners to the appropriate forum, having regard to the fact that the writ petition has been filed and has been pending, on being entertained on the file of this Court so long we consider it appropriate, in the interests of justice to declare clause 8 of the Agreement of Service, extracted above to be void and unenforceable against the petitioners as being violative of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, applying the law declared by the Apex Court in the cases noticed supra. Consequently, the orders of termination in these cases are also declared illegal and non est, having no legs to stand in the absence of the provision contained in clause 8 above, which has been declared void.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - D Raju - Full Document

Mukundlal Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is 51 therefore not enforceable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking is given voluntarily.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

B.D. Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is 51 therefore not enforceable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking is given voluntarily.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Ganesh Prasad Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is 51 therefore not enforceable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking is given voluntarily.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next