Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
K.Muralidhar, Hyderabad. vs Addl.Industrial Tribunal Cum ... on 24 November, 2021 cites

Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs Commissioner Of Police Delhi & Ors on 16 March, 2004

9. Another decision relied upon the 2nd respondent is the case of India Tourism Development Centre Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court X and others (5 supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the past record of the workman can be considered before awarding the punishment. However, in the said case, on the earlier occasions, the punishment of stoppage of two annual 6 increments was awarded and in spite of the same, the petitioner therein had remained absent for 62 days and therefore, the Court was of the view that awarding of punishment of removal from service was justified. This case is also distinguishable on facts from the facts of the case before this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 176 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

India Tourism Development Centre vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court X & Ors. on 14 January, 2000

9. Another decision relied upon the 2nd respondent is the case of India Tourism Development Centre Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court X and others (5 supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the past record of the workman can be considered before awarding the punishment. However, in the said case, on the earlier occasions, the punishment of stoppage of two annual 6 increments was awarded and in spite of the same, the petitioner therein had remained absent for 62 days and therefore, the Court was of the view that awarding of punishment of removal from service was justified. This case is also distinguishable on facts from the facts of the case before this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical ... vs Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar on 3 April, 2017

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Hari Haran, reiterated the submissions and submitted that a charge sheet was issued for unauthorised leave of 63½ days during the year 1997, but the respondents have taken into consideration the unauthorised leave for the earlier years also to award the punishment of removal from service. He submitted that the respondents could not have taken action on the unauthorised leave of earlier years without issuing a charge sheet to the petitioner to that period as well. Further, for the 3 disproportionality of punishment of removable from service for the misconduct of unauthorised absence, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others1 and also in the case of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur Vs. Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar2.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Burn Standard Company Limited vs Workmen Of M/S. Burn Standard Company ... on 29 August, 2019

In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, i.e., the case of M/s. Burn and Co. Limited Vs. Their Workmen and others (4 supra), the petitioner therein was the Secretary of a Union and had claimed immunity from punishment for breaking discipline and after taking into consideration the actions of misconduct by the Union Secretary, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that he cannot claim immunity from punishment and absence of the workman without permission and without any application for leave amounts to gross violation of discipline entailing a dismissal from service. This Court finds that the facts of the above case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before this Court.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - A Mukherjee - Full Document
1