Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Management Of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 10 September, 2004
Recently, in Muriadih Colliery BCC Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (2005) 3 SCC 331) this Court after referring to and quoting the relevant passages from Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh 2 and Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen (1973) 2 SCC 502) held: (SCC p. 336, para 17)
The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence have undermined the discipline in the organisation, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under Section 11-A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal.
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005
"25. It is now well settled that the industrial courts do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. (See North Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. v. Ashappa (2006 (5) SCC 137), State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006 (3) SCC 276), A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General (2006 (4) SCC 348), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134), M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (3) SCC 401), Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka (2006 91) SCC 430), and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T.K. Raju (2006 (3) SCC 143). "
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005
"25. It is now well settled that the industrial courts do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. (See North Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. v. Ashappa (2006 (5) SCC 137), State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006 (3) SCC 276), A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General (2006 (4) SCC 348), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134), M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (3) SCC 401), Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka (2006 91) SCC 430), and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T.K. Raju (2006 (3) SCC 143). "
Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M/S Bccl ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Through: ... on 22 February, 2005
Recently, in Muriadih Colliery BCC Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (2005) 3 SCC 331) this Court after referring to and quoting the relevant passages from Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh 2 and Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen (1973) 2 SCC 502) held: (SCC p. 336, para 17)
The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence have undermined the discipline in the organisation, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under Section 11-A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
6. A reference to the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the Labour Court in clear terms has come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair manner. Further, the previous records of the appellant is accumulated with many punishments for frequent unauthorised absence. In fact, the Labour Court has also stated that the Transport Corporation has awarded only lesser punishment for the misconduct of unauthorised absence committed during the period 1987 to 1995. Having held so, it has shown sympathy on the appellant on the ground that he was without employment nearly for one year from the date of his dismissal, viz., from 25.07.1996 and also lost salary for one year and considering the punishment of dismissal as harsh, has set aside the same and ordered reinstatement with service benefits, but without backwages. This is a classic instance wherein misplaced sympathy has been shown by the Labour court, having found that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair manner. This practice of showing misplaced sympathy or generosity or compassionate ground to review the quantum of punishment is held to be impermissible by hierarchy of judgements of the Apex court. It is also clear that the Apex court has held that only in cases where the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved, the Court can interfere to reduce the punishment, as it was held in B.S. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 484) and Pritam Singh vs. Union of India (JT 2004 (7) 576).
North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn vs Ashappa on 12 May, 2006
"25. It is now well settled that the industrial courts do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. (See North Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. v. Ashappa (2006 (5) SCC 137), State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006 (3) SCC 276), A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General (2006 (4) SCC 348), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134), M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (3) SCC 401), Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka (2006 91) SCC 430), and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T.K. Raju (2006 (3) SCC 143). "
State Of U.P vs Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava & Ors on 24 February, 2006
"25. It is now well settled that the industrial courts do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. (See North Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. v. Ashappa (2006 (5) SCC 137), State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006 (3) SCC 276), A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General (2006 (4) SCC 348), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134), M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (3) SCC 401), Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka (2006 91) SCC 430), and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T.K. Raju (2006 (3) SCC 143). "
Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005
"25. It is now well settled that the industrial courts do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. (See North Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. v. Ashappa (2006 (5) SCC 137), State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006 (3) SCC 276), A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General (2006 (4) SCC 348), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134), M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (3) SCC 401), Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka (2006 91) SCC 430), and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T.K. Raju (2006 (3) SCC 143). "