Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.69 seconds)
Documents citing Gnanasambandam S. vs Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. And ... on 13 February, 2001

S. Singaravelu vs General Manager, Southern Railway And ... on 13 July, 2007

16. Again, the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in S. Gnanasambandam v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. 2001 (3) L.L.N. 677 has no application to the facts of the case, since that was relating to a case where the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent Management was a Law Graduate and on such factual situation, a decision was arrived at to equate with such a qualified person the delinquent employee should be provided with equally effective assistance.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

S. Singaravelu vs General Manager on 13 July, 2007

16. Again, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in S. Gnanasambandam vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., (2001 (3) L.L.N. 677) has no application to the facts of the case, since that was relating to a case where the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent Management was a Law Graduate and on such factual situation, a decision was arrived at to equate with such a qualified person the delinquent employee should be provided with equally effective assistance.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

R Srinivas vs Department Of Promotion And Industry & ... on 27 July, 2023

17. Learned counsel for applicant in support of his contentions has relied upon the judgment dt. 04.02.1992 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 6554 of 1990 in the case of S. Gnanasambantham Vs. Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd and anr. While dealing into the similar issue wherein the person along with his post has been transferred to another office, the Hon'ble High Court has considered the issue at length and also raised the question over the power when the authorities have tranferred the person from one department along with post to another department. It was observed thus, "6. What has been done in the case before me is one post of Senior Accounts Officer is transferred from the Registered Office to Alangulam Cement Works and then the petitioner was transferred and posted to that post. Whether it can be done in I view of orders of Mohan .J. is the question. That apart, whether the Managing Director has got the power to transfer a post to another office, so to say, the Cement Works at Alangulam, especially when the post is created in the Registered Office. I do not see any power is vested with the Managing Director to pass such an order in the Articles of Association, viz., the Service Rules, which have been produced before. I am not able to accept the arguments of the Learned Senior counsel for the respondents that the Managing Director has got powers delegate to pass the impugnec order. This is a case where a post has been transferred from the Registered Office to Alangulam and the petitioner is posted 15 OA 478/2023 there. Before Mohan. J. (as he then was) in the above mentioned case, a post was created and the petitioner in that case was transferred. So except for different procedure adopted, I do not think the principle differs. What the principle decided by Mohan. J. (as he then was) in the above mentioned case on the Articles of Association and Service Rules, do not enable to transfer of the individual along with the post. The same has been done here also. I see no difference in the difference decided by Mohan J. (as he then was) in the abovementioned case. With respect, I follow the same. In view of the fact that the Articles of Association of Service Rules do not empower the Managing Director of the Respondents to transfer a post from the Registered Office, leave alone the creation of post, the impugned order has to be set aside."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Neelaveni Ramachandran vs National Bank For Agriculture & on 30 April, 2003

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Presenting Officer, who was a very senior officer in NABARD, was in Central Vigilance Commission of NABARD and had wide experience as Presenting Officer in many such enquiries. Even though he may not be a law graduate, by virtue of his experience it must be taken that he is having clear grasp and knowledge over the legal matters. Moreover, the enquiry is being conducted by an officer deputed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner, having wide and varied experience in such matters. In addition to the above aspects, the allegations also appear to be serious as well as complicated and if found guilty, the possibility of the petitioner being dismissed from the service looms large. In the above view of the matter, the request for availing the assistance of a lawyer should not have been rejected as a matter of routine. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2001(3) LLN 677 (S. GNANASAMBANDAM v. TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER) and 1991(3)SCC 219 (NAGARAJ SHIVARAO KARJAGI v. SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL AND ANOTHER) in support of his submission.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document

B.Lakshmikanth vs The General Manager (Net Work-Ii) on 29 September, 2016

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions reported in (i) 2011 Writ L.R. 734 [M/s.Chidambaram Shipcare Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour, Chennai & Others] (ii) (2001) 2 MLJ 140 (Gnanasambandam Vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation), (iii) 1972 (3) SCC 542 (C.L.Subramaniam Vs. Collector of Customs, Chochin). Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for quashing the impugned orders and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document
1