Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)State Of U.P. And Anr vs Raja Ram Jaiswal And Anr- on 29 April, 1985
Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal (supra) the Supreme Court observed:
M/S. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shri Jai Singh And Others on 20 September, 1961
In Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh (1961) II LLJ 644 (684), the Supreme Court observed:
Martin Burn Ltd vs R.N Banerjee on 20 September, 1957
13. It is well settled that where an inquiry has been held against the workman on charges of misconduct and the management applies for approval under Section 33(2)(b), the Tribunal or Labour Court has only to see whether a prima facie case made out vide Martin Burn, Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee (1958) I LLJ 247 (255). As observed in the said case, the prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt, but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led to support the same were believed. In determining whether there is a prima facie case, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question, and not whether that was the only conclusion which could have been arrived. The Tribunal has only to see that whether the view taken by the inquiry officer is a possible view on the evidence on record.
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Mohd. Ismail And Ors on 11 April, 1991
21. Moreover, the judgment of the learned single Judge has also to be set aside on the ground that even if he was of the opinion that the application of the management under Section 33(2)(b) was wrongly rejected, he could have only remanded the matter to the Tribunal, and he could not have himself granted the approval. It is well settled that the High Court cannot takeover the function of the statutory authorities under an Act, vide G. Veerappa Pillai, Proprietor, Sathi Vihar Bus Service Porayar, Tanjore District, Madras v. Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Ors. , State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and Anr. , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Mohd. Ismail and Ors. and State of U.P. and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal and Anr. (1985) 2 SCC 131 (paragraph 16).
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Section Officer Brotherhood & Anr on 27 September, 2004
21. Moreover, the judgment of the learned single Judge has also to be set aside on the ground that even if he was of the opinion that the application of the management under Section 33(2)(b) was wrongly rejected, he could have only remanded the matter to the Tribunal, and he could not have himself granted the approval. It is well settled that the High Court cannot takeover the function of the statutory authorities under an Act, vide G. Veerappa Pillai, Proprietor, Sathi Vihar Bus Service Porayar, Tanjore District, Madras v. Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Ors. , State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and Anr. , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Mohd. Ismail and Ors. and State of U.P. and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal and Anr. (1985) 2 SCC 131 (paragraph 16).
The Punjab National Bank, Ltd vs Its Workmen on 24 September, 1959
In Punjab National Bank v. Their Workmen (1959) II LLJ 666 (678-80), the Supreme Court observed:
Management Of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd vs Its Workmen on 27 July, 1962
16. It is well settled that a defective inquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry vide Management of Ritz Theatre Ltd. v. Its Workmen . In fact, it was for this reason that the management was allowed to lead evidence before the Tribunal.
1