Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)Cooper Engineering Limited vs Shri P. P. Mundhe on 20 August, 1975
Lakshmidevamma (2001) 5 SCC 433 observing that the Apex
Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd (supra) case has held that
when the Industrial Adjudicator is called upon to decide the
validity of the domestic inquiry, the same has to be tried as a
preliminary issue and thereafter if necessary the employer has
W.P.(C) No.8365-66/2006 Page 10 of 21
to be given an option to adduce fresh evidence. It was further
held that the employer is to seek permission to lead evidence to
prove misconduct, in the event of failing in the issue of inquiry,
before the Industrial Adjudicator returns a finding on the
domestic inquiry.
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh on 11 January, 1972
17. The Supreme Court in Ludh Budh Singh (supra) did envisage a
situation, of the employer without prejudice to its plea that the inquiry was
proper, "simultaneously" adducing additional evidence before the Tribunal
justifying its action. It was further observed that in such a case no inference
can be drawn that the management had given up the inquiry conducted by it
and it is the duty of the Tribunal to, in the first instance consider whether the
inquiry proceedings were valid or proper and if the Industrial Adjudicator is
satisfied that the inquiry was properly held, the question of considering the
evidence adduced before it on merits does not arise. Only if the Tribunal
holds that the inquiry was not properly held, would it have jurisdiction to
consider the evidence on misconduct adduced before it by the management.
The said passages in Ludh Budh Singh have not been dissented with in any
of the subsequent judgments. Once the said option is held to be available, the
question of Industrial Adjudicator having no jurisdiction to record evidence
on misconduct till holding the inquiry to be vitiated does not arise.
Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs Its Workmen on 2 May, 1975
B. M/s Lakshmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen
AIR 1975 SC 1689 - only on the aspect of the right of the
employer to establish misconduct of the workman before the
Industrial Adjudicator even if the domestic inquiry is found to
be vitiated;
Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co.Ltd. & Anr on 4 May, 1979
C. Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (1979) 3
SCC 371 - laying down that there is no obligatory duty of the
Industrial Adjudicator to call upon the employer to adduce
additional evidence if it so chooses after recording a specific
finding on the preliminary issue whether there was no inquiry
or the one held was defective. It was held that it is for the
employer to seek an opportunity for the said purpose.
Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda And Others on 27 September, 1983
D. Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda (1983) 4 SCC 491 -
Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996
E. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. A.B. Zodge (1996) 4 SCC 374 -
Toshniwal Brothers Private Ltd. vs Bir Singh And Ors. on 1 September, 1972
19. I find Deshpande, J. in Toshniwal Brothers P. Ltd. v. Bir Singh ILR
1973(1) Delhi 319 to have also observed that the Industrial Adjudicator may
find it convenient to record the evidence on misconduct first and then hear
the arguments on the whole case and if it finds that the domestic inquiry was
valid then the evidence adduced to establish misconduct would not have to
be considered at all and would be rendered superfluous; if the Industrial
W.P.(C) No.8365-66/2006 Page 15 of 21
Adjudicator concludes the domestic inquiry to be invalid then it would
consider the evidence adduced to establish misconduct and give the final
decision.
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
20. The practice as informed to be prevalent till now before the Industrial
Adjudicators of conducting the proceedings in two stages need not continue
merely for the reason of having been practiced for long. In today's days
when Courts and the Industrial Adjudicators are struggling with docket
explosion and are overburdened, need has arisen to have a fresh look at
procedures which are found to be causing delays. Law cannot be a fossil.
The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754
emphasized the need for adapting the law to new urges in society and quoted
with approval the Holmesian aphorism that the "life of the law has not been
logic, it has been experience". It was further held that in a developing
society such as India, law does not assume its true function when it follows a
groove chased amidst a context which has long since crumbled.
State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And Anr on 20 November, 2003
Similarly in
State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 26 it was
held that a decision although neither reversed nor overruled may cease to be
law owing to changed conditions and changed law, as reflected by the
principle "cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex" .