Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 200 (2.54 seconds)
Documents citing Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005

Statesman Limited vs Second Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 18 May, 2006

In M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (supra) it is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the punishment of termination awarded for hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstances established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that this clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the organization. Discipline at the workplace in an organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank (Having Taken ... vs Presiding Officer, Central Govt. ... on 21 November, 2014

As the concerned workman committed gross misconduct by entering in the bank premises in the  state of  drunkenness,  the act of misconduct  has been  proved  by the  management.  Hence the punishment  awarded by the management of termination of services of the workman cannot be said to be  shockingly  disproportionate. The  Tribunal  ought not to have interfered in the punishment  awarded to the workman.  Reliance has been placed upon judgment of the  Apex Court in U.P. State Road  Transport Corporation vs.  Subhash Chandra  Sharma 2000 LawSuit(SC) 548 and Madhya  Pradesh Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma AIR (SC) 2005, 924(supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - S Agarwal - Full Document

G. Vijayan vs The Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2007

"25. It is now well settled that the industrial courts do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. (See North Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. v. Ashappa (2006 (5) SCC 137), State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006 (3) SCC 276), A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General (2006 (4) SCC 348), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134), M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (3) SCC 401), Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka (2006 91) SCC 430), and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T.K. Raju (2006 (3) SCC 143). "
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next