Cochin Shipyard Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal on 2 February, 2005
In Rama Kanta Mishra v. State of U.P., (1982) 3 SCC 346, the Apex Court has held as follows:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 118 (1.29 seconds)Documents citing
Rama Kant Misra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 October, 1982
Alisha Dullasha Saiyad vs Conservator Of Forests, Bhuj And Anr. on 5 November, 2001
10. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Kant Misra v. State of U. P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1982 SC 1552 in which on page 1554 at para 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
Rajamanickam S. vs Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, ... on 14 September, 1999
(iii) The decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (supra) has no application, as it was a case of mere use of abusive language. The instant case is not a case of mere filmy language, but also a case of assault on the Warehouse Manager and he was pushed down from the chair by the petitioner, the telephone instrument was thrown upon him, he was kicked with foot, chappals, etc. Therefore, the said decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the case.
Jayesh K Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2024
(c) In the case of Rama Kant Misra vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors., reported in (1982) 3 SCC 346.
S.Raja vs M/S.Hindustan Unilever Ltd on 25 September, 2019
b) 1982 Lab IC 1790 (Rama Kant Misra vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh;
S.Raja vs M/S.Hindustan Unilever Ltd on 25 September, 2019
b) 1982 Lab IC 1790 (Rama Kant Misra vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh;
The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, ... vs G.S. Bangaram on 5 June, 2023
In Rama Kant Mishra v. State of U.P. reported
1982 (3) SCC 346, their Lordships of the Supreme Court
interfered with an award of the Labour Court which had
upheld the dismissal of an employee found guilty of
using indiscreet, improper and abusive language and
threatening postures. The court held that mere use of
such language without any other misconduct during 14
years of service did not warrant penalty of dismissal
WP_12853_2010
SN,J
24
from service. The court substituted the penalty of
dismissal by withholding of two increments with future
effect.
Ctm Textiles Mills vs Yashinbhai V. Rajput on 19 April, 2005
11. Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (1982) 3 SCC 346.
Alisha Dullasha Saiyad vs Conservator Of Forests on 5 November, 2001
10. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMA KANT MISRA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1982 SC 1552 in which on page 1554 at para 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
A.P. Shah And Ors. vs B.M. Institute Of Mental Health, ... on 26 July, 1985
In Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. the Supreme Court held that with the insertion of Section 11A, the Labour Court has the jurisdiction and power to substitute its measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 can examine whether the Labour Court has properly approached the matter for exercising or refusing to exercise its power under Section 11 A.D.A. Desai, J., speaking for the Court makes some instructive observation in that case in paragraph 6 which reads as under: