Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 315 (2.25 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975

The Management vs N. Sethumadhavan on 16 June, 2025

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sumit Bhattacharya vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 January, 2008

28. We have also taken note of the fact that in Bharat V. Patel's case (supra), the points of distinction between the nature of stock options and stock appreciation rights were not highlighted before the Division Bench of the Tribunal. It was not pointed out to the Division Bench that the scheme of stock appreciation right and stock option plan are materially different and, therefore, these two things has materially different tax implications. The (Division Bench proceeded on the basis that SAR and ESOP are in materially the same - a hypothesis which, for the detailed reasons set out in this order, we are unable to accept. The conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench, therefore, do call for reconsideration. It is, in any event, nobody's case that the said decision is binding on this larger bench. We have carefully perused the said DB decision and, with respect, we are not persuaded by the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 55 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Fouress Engineering (India) ... vs Sri T K Muniswamy on 27 February, 2026

NC: 2026:KHC:12474 WP No. 7053 of 2020 HC-KAR labour practices on account of factual victimisation. Once that happens clause (a) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act would get attracted, even apart from the very same act being covered by unfair labour practices envisaged by clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the very same Item 1 of Schedule IV. But it cannot be said that d clause (a) of Item I which deals with victimisation covers only factual victimisation. There can be in addition legal victimisation and it is this type of victimisation which is contemplated by the decision of this Court in Hind Construction. It must, therefore, be held that if the punishment of dismissal or discharge is found shockingly disproportionate by the Court regard being had to the particular major misconduct and the past service record of the delinquent or is such as no reasonable employer could ever impose in like circumstances, it would be unfair labour practice by itself being an instance of victimisation in law or legal victimisation independent of factual victimisation, if any. Such an unfair labour practice is covered by the present Act by enactment of clause (a) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act as it would be an act of victimisation in law as clearly ruled by this Court in the aforesaid decision. On the same lines is a latter decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel wherein a Bench of three learned Judges speaking through Goswami, J. laid down the parameters of the term "victimisation" as understood in labour laws and as contemplated by industrial jurisprudence. It has been observed that ordinarily a person is victimised if he is made a victim or a scapegoat and is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt of his own. If actual fault or guilt meriting punishment is established, such action will be rid of the taint of victimisation. The aforesaid observations obviously refer to factual victimisation. But then follows further elucidation of the term "victimisation" to the following effect: (SCR Headnote "Victimisation may partake of various types, as for example, pressurising an employee to leave the union or union activities, treating an employee in a
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - P S Yerur - Full Document

M/S Associated Aviation Pvt. Ltd vs The Presiding Officer on 4 February, 2011

Lastly, the case M/s Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi and another, (supra) relied on by ARW pertains to Patna High Court and it has persuasive value on the court situated in territory of Delhi whereas cases UCO Bank vs. The Presiding Officer & Another, (supra) and M/s Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and ors. (supra) of Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding on this court.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijaya Mohini Mills vs Industrial Tribunal And Anr. on 31 October, 1991

5. The Tribunal is not sitting as a court of appeal weighing or reappraising the evidence. It only examines the findings of the Enquiry Officer hi order to find out whether there is a prima facie case or whether the findings are perverse, simply for the purpose of granting or refusing approval. A prima facie case is not, as in a criminal case, a case proved to the hilt. If there is no defect in procedure such as non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, the other grounds on which the Tribunal can interfere are only when (1) there is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic enquiry as if no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry, or (2) if the Tribunal finds that the dismissal is by way of victimisation of unfair labour practice (Bharat Iron Works v. Bhahub-hai Balubhai Patet(1976) 49 FJR 332 (SC)). If there was a proper enquiry into the misconduct and no victimisation or unfair labour practice is involved, the Tribunal has to limit its enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) only to the question as to whether a prima facie case has been made out or nat. It is not open to the Tribunal to consider whether the order proposed to be passed is proper or adequate.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramsey Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Sant Lal And Ors. on 27 October, 1986

13. Applying the aforesaid ratio of the cases referred to above to the facts of the present case I am of the opinion that the cumulative effect of the number of irregularities and infirmities pointed out in the Domestic Inquiry particularly that the workman was treasurer of the trade union on the relevant date it appears that the Management was in search of some opportunity to retrench him and consequently he was victimised for his trade union activities. It further appears that the search against the workman in respect of the Dardona tablets was not carried out at the main gate which should have been proper against a workman. He was taken in the room of the security officer, when there was a curtain on the door and there Sri Ramji, an employee of the Security Department and Capt. Sharma were present and the Dardona tablets folded in a towel were given in the hands of the workman but he refused. Thereafter he was given beating and some other persons collected there. The Labour Court has correctly reached the conclusion that the charge of the alleged theft of Dardona tablets against the workman was not proved. The Labour Court did not act as a Court of Appeal against the findings of the Domestic Inquiry. After pointing out the infirmities and after affording sufficient opportunity to the employer to lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman, the findings in the Award were recorded. The employer availed of that opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court and examined Sri. B.P. Misra, the Inquiry Officer and Capt. Brij Pal Sharma, Chief Security Officer. No other witnesses were examined on behalf of the employer. The only inescapable conclusion was that the retrenchment order passed was found to be illegal and the reinstatement was ordered. I am of the view that the order of reinstatement has correctly been passed. The findings arc findings of fact and they do not suffer from any infirmity.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Chemicals Ltd & vs Kirit B Barot & on 27 April, 2017

6.5 In case of 'MESSRS BHARAT IRON WORKS VS. BHAGUBHAI BALUBHAI PATEL & OTHERS' (supra)the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the ID Act was examined and the Apex Court held that when an application under Section 33 of the ID Act either for approval or for permission is made, it has initially limited jurisdiction only to see that whether a prima facie case is made out in case of misconduct charged. This is however the position only when the domestic inquiry precedes the order of dismissal considering whether it is free from any defect or from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice. If on the other hand, there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal will then give opportunity to the employer to produce evidence if any and also to the workman to rebut it if he so Page 22 of 64 HC-NIC Page 22 of 64 Created On Mon Aug 14 07:57:30 IST 2017 C/SCA/1723/1999 JUDGMENT choses. In the latter event, the Tribunal will be entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on merits on the evidence produced before it with regard to the proof of the misconduct charged and the Tribunal then will not be confined merely to consider whether a prima facie case is established against the employee. In other words in such an event the employer's findings in the domestic inquiry will lapse and these will be substituted by the independent conclusions of the Tribunal on merits. In a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of the a domestic inquiry in to the charges for misconduct against an employee, the tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal where the finding is perverse or there is no prima facie case. In such a case the tribunal does not sit as a Court of appeal weighing or reappreciating the evidence for itself but only to examine the finding of the inquiry officer on the evidence in the domestic inquiry as it is. Again, in the same case where there is no failure of the principles of natural justice in the course of domestic inquiry, if the tribunal finds that dismissal of an employee is by way of victimisation or unfair labour practice, it will then have complete jurisdiction to interfere with the order of dismissal passed in the domestic inquiry. In that event the fact that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the course of the domestic inquiry will absolutely lose its Page 23 of 64 HC-NIC Page 23 of 64 Created On Mon Aug 14 07:57:30 IST 2017 C/SCA/1723/1999 JUDGMENT importance or efficacy. Whether and under what facts and circumstances the tribunal will accept the plea of victimization against the employer will depend upon the its judicial discretion. The Apex Court further held that if a person is victimized and if he is made a victim or a scapegoat and is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no fault of his or guilt of his own in the manner as if he was of a sacrificial victim, it is a serious charge by an employee against an employer and therefore it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is based to enable the employer to fully meet them. The charge must not be vague or indefinite being as it is an amalgam of facts as well as inferences and attitudes.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - S G Gokani - Full Document

A.Kanakaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 20 November, 2024

On the same lines is a latter decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors. [(1976) 2 SCR 280] wherein a Bench of three Learned Judges speaking through Goswami.J. laid down the parameters of the term ‘victimisation’ as understood in labour laws and as contemplated by industrial jurisprudence. It has been observed that ordinarily a person is victimised if he is made a victim or a scapegoat and is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt of his own. If actual fault or guilt meriting punishment is established. Such action will be rid of the taint of victimisation. The aforesaid observations obviously refer to factual victimisation. But then follows further elucidation of the term ‘victimisation’ to the following effect:
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next