Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 11 April, 1985
At first sight the observations made in the last part of para 6 of the judgment in Bombay Union of Journalists' case, seem to suggest that the Government can express its prima facie view on merits of the dispute to give the reasons for refusal to make a reference while the later decisions in Ram Avtar's case, and in Workmen of Syndicate Bank's case, find it impermissible. This impression is created on reading only a part of para 6 of the judgment in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists. It vanishes when the full text of para 6 is read, in its proper context, and, in the light of the whole scheme of the relevant provisions explained in that case as also in the earlier case of K.P. Krishnan. The principles laid down in those cases, based upon clear demarcation of purely administrative power of the Government as against the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Tribunal, have been further developed in the later cases of Ram Avtar and in Workmen of Syndicate Bank. We find no conflict in these decisions. The case in hand has to be decided in view of all the four decisions of the Supreme Court.
Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975
(12) Next, regarding the relevant of severity of punishment, it is clear from decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat iron Works v. Bhagubhai, that if it is found that the dismissal of an employee is by way of victimisation, then it will be vitiated on that ground alone despite the fact that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in the course of the domestic inquiry, and also that "a grossly monstrous punishment which no rational person would impose upon an employee" may indicate victimisation. So, the learned single judge was right in observing : "It would also be victimisation if an employee guilty of misconduct is awarded punishment quite out of proportion to the gravity of the charge simply because he has displeased the employer for his union activities or for some other such reason."
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
Further, it is clear from principles No. (1) and (3) enumerated by the Supreme Court in the Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. The Management, , that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction (even before Section 11A was inserted in the Act) to go into the quantum of punishment if a dispute was referred to it, and that interference with the decision of the employer could be justified if the management was guilty of victimisation. Since the workmen alleged victimisation, the learned single judge was justified in directing the appropriate Government to consider severity of punishment as a facet of victimisation even though that aspect was not specifically or separately raised by the workmen in their statement of claim.
The Bombay Union Of Journalists And ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961
See Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, . It is equally well settled that where the Government purports to give reasons which tantamount to adjudication and refuses to make a reference, the appropriate Government could be said to have acted on extraneous, irrelevant grounds or grounds not germane to the determination and a writ of mandamus would lie calling upon the Government to reconsider its decision. In this case a clear case for grant of writ of mandamus is made out."