Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Begh Raj on 27 January, 2005
To the same effect is another judgment in
MCD Vs. Begh Raj 117(2005) DLT 438 laying down that if the
workman had abandoned employment, that would be a ground
for holding an enquiry and passing an appropriate order and that
having not been done, the action of MCD could not have been
sustained.
M/S. Fateh Chand vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr. on 16 January, 2012
In M/s Fateh Chand vs Presiding Officer Labour
Court & Anr., 2012 LLR 468 Delhi, our own the Hon'ble High
Court observed that the management has to bring on record
sufficient material to show that the employee has abandoned the
service and abandonment cannot be attributed to the employee
without there being sufficient evidence. On failure to report for
duty, the management has to call upon the employee and if he
refuses to report, then an enquiry is required to be ordered
against him and accordingly action taken. In the absence of
anything placed on record by the petitioner management, no
presumption against the respondent can be drawn. It was held to
be a case of violation of Section 25F of the Act.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 6 December, 2006
In MCD vs Sukhbir Singh, 1994 ILR 332, in case
of abandonment of service, it was held that the management was
LIR No.7511/2013 Page No.16/21
Sabbal Singh Negi vs. M/s. Surya Enterprises & Ors.
duty bound to conduct an inquiry.
Shakuntala Export House (P) Ltd. vs P.O. Labour Court X And Anr. on 4 February, 2005
Reference in this regard may
also be made to Shakuntala Export House (P) Ltd. vs P.O.
Labour Court X & Anr. 117(2005) DLT 479.
The Buckingham And Carnatic Co. Ltd vs Venkatiah And Anr on 2 August, 1963
In Shiv Dayal Soin and Sons (supra) also relied
upon in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. vs. Venkatiah AIR 1964
SC 1272 it was observed:
G. T. Lad & Ors vs Chemicals & Fibres Of India Ltd on 6 December, 1978
25. The workman claimed that his services were terminated
on 04.10.12 without assigning any reason. The workman has
relied upon the relevant documents referred above in support of
the claim. There is no document on record placed by the
management to show that workman was issued any notice/charge
sheet for non joining his duties or subsequent enquiry was made
against him. The workman on the other hand placed on records
the legal notice issued to the management no.2. Merely bald
averments/assertions are not sufficient to prove the contentions
by the management no.2 that workman had abandoned the
management no.2.
Workmen Of Motipur Sugar Factory ... vs Motipur Sugar Factory on 30 March, 1965
26. It is reiterated that the workman examined himself
LIR No.7511/2013 Page No.18/21
Sabbal Singh Negi vs. M/s. Surya Enterprises & Ors.
as WW1 and deposed regarding the claim. The witness has also
proved the relevant documents as above said. The management
no.2 admitted the employment of workman. As noted, no inquiry
has been made by the management in the matter as well. It is
settled that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry
before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to
justify the action before the labour court by leading evidence
before it. As held in 'Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt.
Ltd Vs Motipur Sugar Factory' reported in AIR 1965 SC 1803: