Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)The Management Of Best & Crompton ... vs The Presiding Officer, I Additional ... on 30 January, 2002
(b) This Court in the decision reported in 2002 (2) LLN 306 Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. followed the said judgment of the Supreme Court and held that what is relevant for sustaining a report before the Labour Court is the place where the cause of action arose substantially viz., the place where the employee was working at the time when the order of termination order was issued and not as to the place of initial appointment elsewhere, even though he was transferred to other places.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. And Ors on 1 February, 1967
16. (a) The Supreme Court in the decision Workmen of Shri Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd. v. Sri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd and Ors. considered similar jurisdictional issue and in paragraph 14 held as follows:
N. Ramathilagam vs Labour Officer (Conciliation), The ... on 18 June, 2003
(c) The above said judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court were subsequently followed in the decision reported in 2003 3 LLN 296 N. Ramathilagam v. Labour Officer (Conciliation), Kuralagam, Chennai and Ors.
Ramesh S. vs Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd., Manali ... on 8 March, 2000
(b) The other decision of the Division Bench reported in 2001 (1) LLN 557 S. Ramesh v. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. is also distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the petitioner was appointed as an attender in the Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited, Manali, Chennai, and he was promoted as Senior Attender and transferred to Kanpur branch from 7.1.1995. While he was working there, he was served with show cause notice, which was issued from the Madras Office. The allegation was that he has made false claim for Rs. 1,855/-, which he claimed to have paid as school fees for his son who was a student in UKG 'A' Section of DAV School at Madras. It was also found that after holding enquiry for the charge, order of termination was issued by the Chief Manager from the Madras office. Hence cause of action viz., issuance of the charge memo, passing the order of termination has happened at Madras and therefore the Division Bench held that the cause of action having taken place at Madras, the Conciliation Officer, Madras, has got jurisdiction to proceed with conciliation.