Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Dtc vs Anant Ram on 16 October, 2015 cites

Calcutta Port Sharmik Union vs Calcutta River Transport Association & ... on 13 September, 1988

SCC 768; Calcutta Port W.P.(C) 8472/2010 Page 6 of 15 Shramik Union v. Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors., 1988 (Supp.) SCC 768 and Sudhoo v. M/s Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works and Ors. 1990 Lab. I.C. 1538 . Therefore, the issue which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, which were brought on record in the domestic inquiry proceedings and Labour Court, it could be said that there was some evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of misconduct alleged against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 102 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977

It was the case of the management that the statement of three passengers were recorded by Sh. Babu Lal, however, during his cross- examination in the inquiry proceedings, he admitted that he had recorded the statement of only one passenger and even his complete address was not noted. No explanation was given as to why the statements of the remaining two passengers were not recorded and why their complete addresses were not noted. As to who were those passengers, has remained a mystery since those passengers were not produced in the inquiry. No doubt in view of State of Haryana & Another vs. Rattan Singh, (1982) 1 LLJ 46, it is not necessary to produce the passengers. However, there should be some other independent evidence to connect the workman with the alleged misconduct. Although it is alleged that three un-punched tickets were given by the W.P.(C) 8472/2010 Page 9 of 15 respondent/workman, however, original un-punched tickets were never produced before the Court. Record reveals that an application was moved by the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in regard to various documents. While the management was permitted to lead secondary evidence regarding the checking report, challan, charge sheet, show cause notice, removal letter and past record but the prayer for proving the un-punched tickets by way of secondary evidence was declined. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court misdirected itself in not considering the un-punched tickets which were duly proved by the witnesses of the petitioner is devoid of merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 650 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sadhu Ram vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 25 August, 1983

13. The scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while examining the industrial award is limited. This court does not sit in appeal over the findings returned by the Domestic Inquiry Tribunal or Industrial Adjudicator. An award can be set aside only if it is based on no evidence or contrary to any substantive law or it is in violation of principles of natural justice as held in Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1967; Harbans Lal v. Jag Mohan (1985) 4 SCC 333; Calcutta Port Shramik Union v. Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors., 1988 (Supp.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 96 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1