Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Madanlal Tandon on 12 April, 2016
39. In light of the aforementioned contentions, the learned Tribunal
opined that the petitioner management has failed to support its stance under
any provision of law. The said documents are in the form of attendance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4235/2017 Page 18 of 29
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:12.03.2024
19:08:35
register etc., which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be privileged
documents. Thus, placing reliance on the judgement in Bilaspur Raipur
Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Madanlal Tandon, 2015 Lab.
Suresh Pathrella vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 19 October, 2006
7. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that
the respondent was guilty of misappropriation of funds, which is a serious
offence thus making him unfit to be retained in the employment of the
petitioner Bank. To strengthen his argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
the case of Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2007 LLR
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sunil Kumar on 19 April, 2010
36. Viewed from this angle, in the present case there was
neither a pleading in which any such claim for adducing
additional evidence was made, nor any request was made
before the Industrial Tribunal till the proceedings were
adjourned for making the Award and till the Award was
made. The case squarely falls within the ratio of Delhi Cloth
& General Mills Co. case. Therefore, the Division Bench of
the Calcutta High Court was clearly in error in granting such
a non-sought opportunity at the stage of the Letters Patent
Appeal."
State Bank Of India & Ors vs Bidyut Kumar Mitra & Ors on 11 January, 2011
10. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously held that the
inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer on behalf of the petitioner Bank
was vitiated for non-application of principles of natural justice as the
respondent was not furnished with the requisite documents relied upon by
the Inquiry Officer to conclude the said inquiry. It is also submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4235/2017 Page 5 of 29
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:12.03.2024
19:08:35
learned Tribunal could have summoned the documents as no prejudice was
caused to the respondent. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State Bank of
India vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 316 and in Karnataka
State Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Lakshmideveamma & Anr.,
AIR 2001 SC 2090.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma & Another on 1 May, 2001
In this backdrop, this Court is of the view that the dismissal of the
application filed by the petitioner management seeking leave of the learned
Tribunal to prove the alleged misconduct of the respondent workman by way
of adducing fresh evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly placed reliance
upon the ratio of Lakshmideveamma Case (Supra) and concluded that the
petitioner management has not pleaded that it had reserved the right to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4235/2017 Page 27 of 29
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:12.03.2024
19:08:35
adduce fresh evidence to substantiate the findings of the domestic inquiry
neither in the written statement nor before the learned Tribunal concluded its
findings on the said inquiry stating therein that the same was not proper
since it violated the principles of natural justice by not furnishing to the
respondent the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer.
Sh. Mohd. Azim vs Sarv Up Gramin Bank on 24 March, 2015
11. It is submitted that in the case of Sh. Mohd. Azim vs. Sarv UP
Gramin Bank, W.P.(C) 4049/2012 this Court vide judgment dated 24th
March, 2015 held as under:-