Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Pandian Roadways Corporation vs Presiding Officer, Additional Labour ... on 28 March, 2000

Subbian vs The Presiding Officer on 4 October, 2013

In Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Vs Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madurai and another (2002 (1) LLN 348), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has observed at paragraph 9 that in the absence of any explanation for not examining the eye witness, no reliance can be given to the uncorroborated evidence of the management witness therein. The relevant paragraph 9 is extracted hereunder:-
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

The Management Of Tamil Nadu vs The Presiding Officer on 6 August, 2010

24. The principles laid down in the aforesaid rulings are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellant Corporation, having taken a plea that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident, could not turn around to say that he was responsible for the accident. As such, it is very much bound by the pleadings raised by its before the Tribunals and this Court. The law is well settled as to the aspect that the standard of proof in both the proceedings before the criminal Court and the domestic enquiry officer are entirely different. However, since the Corporation has consciously raised the contention in favour of the bus driver before the judicial for a, it is precluded from proceeding against him in departmental proceedings. Though the extent of proof is sufficient to the commission of delinquency in the matter of departmental proceedings, the management could not lay its hands on the workman, detrimental to his interest, after defending him before various judicial for a and accepting the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur. Further, in the dismissal order dated December 9, 1998, it is mentioned that even though a scrutiny of the service records would show that the respondent was not at all penalised at any point of time, since he caused a fatal accident, it was proposed to dismiss him from service, which shows that the past records of the respondent were also clean."
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 2 February, 2011

9. He also relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., v. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madurai and another reported in 2002 (1) L.L.N. 348, wherein it is held that 'in the absence of any explanation for not examining the eyewitnesses no reliance can be given to the uncorroborated evidence of the Assistant Engineer.'
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

The Managing Director vs I.Basha on 5 October, 2009

10. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that once it is proved that when there was no 100% negligence on the part of the workman, the work man cannot be held liable for the accident and hence the Tribunal rightly set aside the dismissal order. However he is aggrieved with regard to reinstatement without back wages. He relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Pandian Roadways Corporation Limited (represented by its Managing Director), Madurai vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madurai and another reported in 2002 1 LLN 348. In that case also the workman was terminated from services for rash and negligence driving of the bus based on the Assistant Engineer's evidence, who was not an eyewitness. The labour court reinstated the workman which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge and subsequently by the Division Bench of this court. Relying upon the said judgement, learned counsel for the workman submitted in this case also only the Assistant Engineer was examined, who was not an eyewitness and the conductor or no passenger was not examined.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

D.H.Syed Kasim vs The Presiding Officer on 8 June, 2010

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter relied upon a division bench judgment of this court in Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madurai and another reported in 2002 (1) LLN 348. In that case, the division bench of this court held that placing reliance upon the sole evidence of the Assistant Engineer cannot be a legal evidence and hence the Award passed by the labour court in setting aside the termination of driver was valid.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation ... vs The Presiding Officer

(ii) In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION, LTD. (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR), MADURAI, v. PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER (2002 (1) LLN 348) to say that in the absence of any explanation for not examining the eye-witnesses no reliance can be given to the uncorroborated evidence of the Assistant Engineer.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document
1