Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.69 seconds)
The Management Of: Greaves Cotton Ltd vs G.Srinivasan on 2 July, 2018 cites

Workmen Of M/S Firestone Tyre & Rubber ... vs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company on 13 February, 1976

4.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / workman relied upon the decision reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 (The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co.) to support the contention that the Labour Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, can come to a different conclusion and that where two views are possible on the evidence on record, then the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in coming to a conclusion other than the one arrived at, by the domestic Tribunal by substituting its opinion in the place of the opinion of the domestic Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 151 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India Workers Union vs Food Corporation Of India And Anr on 5 April, 2002

5. The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Management is that, in domestic enquiry, the method of weighing the probabilities of the case is not by looking into evaluating the materials in the light of the requirement of the Evidence Act and that approach is an unreal or impracticable approach, which should be avoided and in support of the said proposition, the decision reported in 1996 (9) SCC 439 (Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India and another) is relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 33 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Engine Valves Ltd. vs Labour Court, Madras And Another on 27 November, 1990

But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic Tribunals in such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves and in holding such enquiries, the Tribunal, must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice; but it would, we think, not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary courts of law. In the present case, no animus is suggested and no malafides have been pleaded. 5.2. Contenting that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court should advert itself to the question of necessity or desirability of interfering with the punishment imposed by the Management, the decision reported in 1991 (1) LLJ 372 (Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another) is relied upon, whereunder it has been held thus:-
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 42 - A S Anand - Full Document

Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela vs A. K. Roy & Ors on 18 December, 1969

14. The question, however, still is whether the Tribunal was, in the circumstances of the case, justified in directing reinstatement. It is true that some of the decisions of this Court have laid down that where the discharge or dismissal of a workman is not legal or justified, the relief which would ordinarily follow would be reinstatement. The Tribunal however, has the discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement if the circumstances of a particular case are unusual or exceptional so as to make reinstatement inexpedient or improper. The Tribunal has, therefore, to exercise its discretion Judicially and in accordance with well recognized principles in that regard and has to examine carefully the circumstances of each case and decide whether such a case is one of those exceptions to the general rule. If the Tribunal were to exercise its discretion in disregard of such circumstances or the principles laid down by this Court it would be a case either of no exercise of discretion or of one riot legally exercised. In either case the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can interfere and cannot be content by simply saying that since the Tribunal has exercised its discretion it will not examine the circumstances of the case to ascertain whether or not such exercise was properly and in accordance with the well-settled principles made. If the High Court were to do so, it would be a refusal on its part to exercise jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 207 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 Next