Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Ebrahim Aboobakar And Another vs Custodian General Ofevacuee Property on 26 May, 1952
Similarly, in the case of Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General (supra), the Apex Court was considering the contentions for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and held:
Francis Klein & Co. (P) Ltd. vs Their Workmen And Anr. on 17 September, 1971
In the case of Francis Klein and Company v. Workmen (supra), the Apex Court held that where the services of an employee, who is discharging an office of trust, are terminated on ground of loss of confidence, the Industrial Tribunals should not either direct his reinstatement or direct that he should be employed in another job.
Binny Ltd vs Their Workmen on 15 February, 1972
In the case of Binny Ltd. v. Workmen (supra) the workman went on special leave on a false representation. Therefore, the Management cancelled the leave sanctioned and ordered him to return to duty at once. But the workman did not report to duty, until the expiry of the leave of eight days, and thereafter he entered the factory hospital as a patient for being treated for fasting, as he participated during the alleged leave period in a hunger strike. Therefore, the Management terminated his services on the ground of loss of confidence. When the said order was assailed before the Labour Court, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with consolidated back wages of Rs. 5,000/-. When the said matter came up before the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the award for reinstatement and back wages cannot be sustained when the employer has lost confidence in such workman.
O.P. Bhandari vs Indian Tourism Development ... on 26 September, 1986
In the case of O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue and observed as under:
L. Michael & Anr vs M/S. Johnston Pumps India Ltd on 10 February, 1975
In the case of L. Michael v. Johnson Pumps Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court, while considering the similar issue, observed that the Tribunal has the power and indeed, the duty of X-ray the order and discover its true nature, if the object and effect, if the attendant circumstances and the ulterior purpose be to dismiss the employee because he is an evil to be eliminated. But if the Management to cover up the inability to establish by an enquiry, illegitimately but ingeniously passes an innocent-looking order of termination simipliciter, such action is bad and is liable to be set aside. Loss of confidence is no new armour for the Management; otherwise security of tenure, ensured by the new industrial jurisprudence and authenticated by a catena of cases of the Supreme Court, can be subverted by this neo-formula. It was further held that the impugned action was not bona fide. Some testimony of unseemly attempts by the workman to get at secrets outside his orbit, some indication of the source of suspicion, some proof of the sensitive or strategic role of the employee, should and would have been forthcoming had the case been bona fide. There is only the ipse dixit of the employer that he was suspecting since 1968, that the appellant was divulging secrets relating to his business. The employer has not disclosed the grounds on which this suspicion arose in 1968. Further, after, 1968, the appellant was given two extra increments, in addition to his normal increments, in appreciation of his hard work. This circumstance completely demolishes even the whimsical and tenuous stand taken by the employer.
B. Vijaya Kumar vs Secretary To Government, Government Of ... on 6 February, 1997
In the case of T. Vijaya Kumar v. The Government of A.P. and Ors. (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that the termination of services of the petitioner for loss of confidence was not justified in the circumstances of the case. If a finding is based on no evidence or is the result of a misreading of the material evidence or is so unreasonable or grossly unjust that no reasonable person would judicially arrive at that conclusion, it is the duty of the Court to interfere and set the matter right. Loss of confidence was given only the reason to get over the difficulty of not being able to prove the guilt of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry.
Zora Singh vs Shri J.M. Tandon And Ors. on 9 September, 1970
In the case of Zora Singh v. J.M. Tandon (supra), the Apex Court was considering the scope of interference in a petition under Article 226 and held: