Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Mangat Rai vs Punjab Road Transport Corpn. & Another on 8 January, 1998

S. Arumainathan vs The Managing Director on 24 July, 2009

21. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1998 (2) LLJ 294 (SC) (Mangat Rai v. Punjab Road Transport Corporation & Another), 1992 (1) LLJ 110 (SC) (Krishna Gopal Vaity v. M/s.Collins & Co & Others) are in respect of the powers conferred on the Labour Court to reappreciate the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also to interfere with the quantum of punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

Darshan Singh Bhatia vs Porrits & Spancer Asia Ltd & Anr on 20 November, 2025

5. Learned counsel for the workman further argued that the Industrial Tribunal ought to have considered the proportionality of the punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act"), but erroneously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the issue of disproportionate punishment. To lend vigour to his contentions, he placed reliance upon the verdicts rendered by Division Benches and Full Bench of this Court respectively in "Mangat Rai Vs. Punjab Road Transport Corporation", 1998(1) S.C.T. 771; "Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another", 1995(3) PLR 603; and "Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Haryana", 1998(2) S.C.T. 1.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anant Pandeey vs Presiding Officer on 8 November, 2000

He has also relied on the case of Mangat Rai v. Punjab Road Transport Corporation and ait-other, reported in 1998(1) SCT 771 (P&H) (DB) : 1995(I) PLR 791. He has relied on para Nos. 27 and 28 of the judgment. It has been held in para No. 27 that the Courts have consistently held that in appropriate cases the Labour Court and the Tribunal can substitute the punishment awarded by the employer with a lesser punishment. It is also observed that the Labour Court or Tribunal can examine the issue relating to fairness of the departmental/domestic enquiry, the merits of the findings recorded during the course of such enquiry as well as the issue relating to punishment. It is observed in para No. 28 of the judgment that if the impugned award was examined in the light of the principles discussed above, there was no hesitation to hold that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 11A of the Act, he had neither discussed the evidence produced during the course of enquiry with a view to determine whether the charge levelled against the workman is proved or not, nor he had considred whether the punishment awarded to him is just or not.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M S Gill - Full Document

Mangat Rai vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 17 May, 2022

CRM-M-42337-2021 In the light of the order of even date passed by this Court in CWP No. 19819 of 2021 titled as Mangat Rai vs. State of Punjab and another, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his alternative remedy in accordance with law. CRM-35634-2021 In view of the disposal of the main case, the present application has been rendered infructuos and the same is disposed of as such.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1