Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
Sh. Baidyanath Mandal vs M/S Cosmic Creations (P) Ltd on 31 October, 2012 cites

Sonal Garments vs Trimbak Shankar Karve on 29 August, 2002

AR for the management, however, argues to the contrary and submits that the workman remained absent unauthorizedly from his duties with the management w.e.f. 11.10.1999 and has not rejoined his duties with the management despite the management having sent notices to the workman for resumption of his duties with the I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.11 OF 46 management vide its letter dated 24.12.1999 Ex. WW1/M­2 sent by registered AD post dated 27.12.1999 Exts. WW1/M­3 and WW1/M­4 at the addresses of the workman on record with the management and thus the workman has abandoned his services with the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the management had never terminated the services of the workman on 25.10.1999, the date alleged and in fact has been always ready and willing to keep the workman in service with the management as stated by the management in its written statement to the instant statement of claim wherein the management has stated that in fact the management had not taken any action against the workman who is still remaining absent and in case he still wants to work with the management he may be directed to report for duty at the factory of the management situated at 223, Phase­IV, Gurgaon giving a simple assurance in writing that he will not remain absent unauthorizedly in future. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the workman is a habitual absentee from his duties with the management and has remained absent from his duties with the management on a number of days while being in the employment of the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that no rejoinder has been filed by the workman to the written statement of the management to his instant statement of claim, on record, wherein the management has placed, on record its willingness to take the workman back on duty I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.12 OF 46 which goes to show that the workman is not having the requisite intention to join duties with the management and accordingly, his allegation that his services have been terminated on the part of the management on the date alleged is not borne out from his conduct in not taking up the offer of the management to resume duties with the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the workman has admitted in his cross examination on behalf of the management as WW1 in workman evidence that he had not applied anywhere for the job subsequent to his alleged termination of service on the date alleged as also has admitted that his family comprises of his wife and four children and that he is incurring an expenditure of about Rupees four to five thousand per month on his monthly expenses which it is not possible for him to meet if he is unemployed and not gainfully employed as alleged by him and accordingly, his allegation of being unemployed though it has not been mentioned by him with effect from which date or with effect from the date of the alleged termination of his services is not proved, on record. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that in view of the conduct of the workman he is not entitled to the relief as claimed by him. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the affidavits by way of evidence of the workman filed in workman evidence are not verified in accordance with law and as such are not admissible in evidence. AR for the management has I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.13 OF 46 also filed written submissions as also relied upon citations 2003 LLR 5 Bombay High Court, Sonal Garments Vs. Trimbak Shanker Karve; 2003 (4) L.L.N. 616 High Court of Bombay, Raju Sanker Poojary Vs. Chembur Warehouse Company and another; 2006 LLR 713 Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region­III, Kanpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal­cum­ Labour Court, Kanpur and another; 2007 LLR 1164 Gujarat High Court, Gopal Nandkishor Sharma Vs. Manager, Nanavati Associates; 2008 LLR 87 Allahabad High Court, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur and Others; 2008 LLR 332 Madhya Pradesh High Court, Hemraj Vs. Director, Sericulture, Bhopal and Anr.;1956 Calcutta 496 (AIR V43 C 143 Sept.)
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 133 - R J Kochar - Full Document

Raju Sankar Poojary vs Chembur Warehouse Company And Anr. on 2 July, 2003

AR for the management, however, argues to the contrary and submits that the workman remained absent unauthorizedly from his duties with the management w.e.f. 11.10.1999 and has not rejoined his duties with the management despite the management having sent notices to the workman for resumption of his duties with the I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.11 OF 46 management vide its letter dated 24.12.1999 Ex. WW1/M­2 sent by registered AD post dated 27.12.1999 Exts. WW1/M­3 and WW1/M­4 at the addresses of the workman on record with the management and thus the workman has abandoned his services with the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the management had never terminated the services of the workman on 25.10.1999, the date alleged and in fact has been always ready and willing to keep the workman in service with the management as stated by the management in its written statement to the instant statement of claim wherein the management has stated that in fact the management had not taken any action against the workman who is still remaining absent and in case he still wants to work with the management he may be directed to report for duty at the factory of the management situated at 223, Phase­IV, Gurgaon giving a simple assurance in writing that he will not remain absent unauthorizedly in future. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the workman is a habitual absentee from his duties with the management and has remained absent from his duties with the management on a number of days while being in the employment of the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that no rejoinder has been filed by the workman to the written statement of the management to his instant statement of claim, on record, wherein the management has placed, on record its willingness to take the workman back on duty I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.12 OF 46 which goes to show that the workman is not having the requisite intention to join duties with the management and accordingly, his allegation that his services have been terminated on the part of the management on the date alleged is not borne out from his conduct in not taking up the offer of the management to resume duties with the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the workman has admitted in his cross examination on behalf of the management as WW1 in workman evidence that he had not applied anywhere for the job subsequent to his alleged termination of service on the date alleged as also has admitted that his family comprises of his wife and four children and that he is incurring an expenditure of about Rupees four to five thousand per month on his monthly expenses which it is not possible for him to meet if he is unemployed and not gainfully employed as alleged by him and accordingly, his allegation of being unemployed though it has not been mentioned by him with effect from which date or with effect from the date of the alleged termination of his services is not proved, on record. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that in view of the conduct of the workman he is not entitled to the relief as claimed by him. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the affidavits by way of evidence of the workman filed in workman evidence are not verified in accordance with law and as such are not admissible in evidence. AR for the management has I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.13 OF 46 also filed written submissions as also relied upon citations 2003 LLR 5 Bombay High Court, Sonal Garments Vs. Trimbak Shanker Karve; 2003 (4) L.L.N. 616 High Court of Bombay, Raju Sanker Poojary Vs. Chembur Warehouse Company and another; 2006 LLR 713 Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region­III, Kanpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal­cum­ Labour Court, Kanpur and another; 2007 LLR 1164 Gujarat High Court, Gopal Nandkishor Sharma Vs. Manager, Nanavati Associates; 2008 LLR 87 Allahabad High Court, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur and Others; 2008 LLR 332 Madhya Pradesh High Court, Hemraj Vs. Director, Sericulture, Bhopal and Anr.;1956 Calcutta 496 (AIR V43 C 143 Sept.)
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 32 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Through ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 3 August, 2007

AR for the management, however, argues to the contrary and submits that the workman remained absent unauthorizedly from his duties with the management w.e.f. 11.10.1999 and has not rejoined his duties with the management despite the management having sent notices to the workman for resumption of his duties with the I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.11 OF 46 management vide its letter dated 24.12.1999 Ex. WW1/M­2 sent by registered AD post dated 27.12.1999 Exts. WW1/M­3 and WW1/M­4 at the addresses of the workman on record with the management and thus the workman has abandoned his services with the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the management had never terminated the services of the workman on 25.10.1999, the date alleged and in fact has been always ready and willing to keep the workman in service with the management as stated by the management in its written statement to the instant statement of claim wherein the management has stated that in fact the management had not taken any action against the workman who is still remaining absent and in case he still wants to work with the management he may be directed to report for duty at the factory of the management situated at 223, Phase­IV, Gurgaon giving a simple assurance in writing that he will not remain absent unauthorizedly in future. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the workman is a habitual absentee from his duties with the management and has remained absent from his duties with the management on a number of days while being in the employment of the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that no rejoinder has been filed by the workman to the written statement of the management to his instant statement of claim, on record, wherein the management has placed, on record its willingness to take the workman back on duty I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.12 OF 46 which goes to show that the workman is not having the requisite intention to join duties with the management and accordingly, his allegation that his services have been terminated on the part of the management on the date alleged is not borne out from his conduct in not taking up the offer of the management to resume duties with the management. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the workman has admitted in his cross examination on behalf of the management as WW1 in workman evidence that he had not applied anywhere for the job subsequent to his alleged termination of service on the date alleged as also has admitted that his family comprises of his wife and four children and that he is incurring an expenditure of about Rupees four to five thousand per month on his monthly expenses which it is not possible for him to meet if he is unemployed and not gainfully employed as alleged by him and accordingly, his allegation of being unemployed though it has not been mentioned by him with effect from which date or with effect from the date of the alleged termination of his services is not proved, on record. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that in view of the conduct of the workman he is not entitled to the relief as claimed by him. It is further the submission of the AR for the management that the affidavits by way of evidence of the workman filed in workman evidence are not verified in accordance with law and as such are not admissible in evidence. AR for the management has I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.13 OF 46 also filed written submissions as also relied upon citations 2003 LLR 5 Bombay High Court, Sonal Garments Vs. Trimbak Shanker Karve; 2003 (4) L.L.N. 616 High Court of Bombay, Raju Sanker Poojary Vs. Chembur Warehouse Company and another; 2006 LLR 713 Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region­III, Kanpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal­cum­ Labour Court, Kanpur and another; 2007 LLR 1164 Gujarat High Court, Gopal Nandkishor Sharma Vs. Manager, Nanavati Associates; 2008 LLR 87 Allahabad High Court, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur and Others; 2008 LLR 332 Madhya Pradesh High Court, Hemraj Vs. Director, Sericulture, Bhopal and Anr.;1956 Calcutta 496 (AIR V43 C 143 Sept.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - B Sapru - Full Document

Bisakha Rani Ghose vs Satish Chandra Roy Singha And Ors. on 10 March, 1955

Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38 Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142 Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another; I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46 AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR 201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969

Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38 Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142 Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another; I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46 AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR 201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 159 - A N Ray - Full Document

Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002

Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38 Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142 Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another; I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46 AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR 201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1118 - Full Document

R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005

Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38 Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142 Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another; I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46 AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR 201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 901 - Full Document

U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005

Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38 Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142 Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another; I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46 AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR 201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 804 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Associates Engineerpvt. ... vs Sh. K.K.Aggarwal & Ors. on 2 February, 2011

The law regarding the concept of 'abandonment' has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide citation AIR 1979 SC 582; G.T. LAD and others, Appellants vs. M/s Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd., Respondent wherein it has been held that abandonment being not a temporary absence but being a total and complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same (emphasis supplied). Admittedly, the said inference i.e. of the workman having allegedly abandoned his employment with the management/employer on the part of the employer/management could not but have been arrived at without holding an enquiry in this regard and affording an opportunity to the alleged delinquent employee/workman of being heard as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide citation MANU/SC/0529/1993 (JT 1993 I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.36 OF 46 (3) SC 617) D.K. Yadav Appellant vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. Respondent as also by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide citations 2010 (117) DRJ 433 Anil Chuttani, Appellant vs. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Respondent; 2010 LLR 312 Hindustan Associates Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. K.K. Aggarwal; MANU/DE/0541/2005 Shakuntla's Export House (P) Ltd. vs. Secretary (Labour); Mount Carmel School vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No­X, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and Others, vide which it has been held that abandonment is also facet of misconduct (emphasis supplied) which in order to be proved/actionable requires an enquiry to be held, which factum I find from the record has neither even been averred by the management in the instant proceedings nor proved in the same, on record.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 75 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Shakuntala'S Export House (P) Ltd. vs Secretary (Labour) And Ors. on 15 April, 2005

The law regarding the concept of 'abandonment' has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide citation AIR 1979 SC 582; G.T. LAD and others, Appellants vs. M/s Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd., Respondent wherein it has been held that abandonment being not a temporary absence but being a total and complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same (emphasis supplied). Admittedly, the said inference i.e. of the workman having allegedly abandoned his employment with the management/employer on the part of the employer/management could not but have been arrived at without holding an enquiry in this regard and affording an opportunity to the alleged delinquent employee/workman of being heard as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide citation MANU/SC/0529/1993 (JT 1993 I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.36 OF 46 (3) SC 617) D.K. Yadav Appellant vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. Respondent as also by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide citations 2010 (117) DRJ 433 Anil Chuttani, Appellant vs. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Respondent; 2010 LLR 312 Hindustan Associates Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. K.K. Aggarwal; MANU/DE/0541/2005 Shakuntla's Export House (P) Ltd. vs. Secretary (Labour); Mount Carmel School vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No­X, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and Others, vide which it has been held that abandonment is also facet of misconduct (emphasis supplied) which in order to be proved/actionable requires an enquiry to be held, which factum I find from the record has neither even been averred by the management in the instant proceedings nor proved in the same, on record.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 22 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next