Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.33 seconds)Section 8 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
The Berar Laws Act, 1941
Section 78 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
Section 73 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors vs Additional Industrial Tribunal, ... on 3 April, 1969
(i) of the Act cannot 'be enlarged by the Labour Court. The
Labour Court found support for this view in the Division
Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raipur
Cooperative Central Bank, Ltd., and another v. State
Industrial Court, Indore and others(1). It was pressed by
the appellant before the Labour Court that the delay in
passing the orders of dismissal was caused due to the
adjournments being granted to the Union because of the
illness of the workmen concerned or due to the inability,
for other reasons, of the workmen to be present. Another
reason given by the appellant Was that the sub-inspector of
police, who investigated the offence of theft, was not
available for some time to give evidence before the Enquiry
Officer. In view of these circumstances, the plea of the
appellant was, that the relevant provisions will have to be
construed not as mandatory but as only enabling and
discretionary powers of the Labour Court which have to be
exercised having due regard to all the attendant
circumstances. The Labour Court in considering this plea of
the appellant held that the delay in passing the orders was
caused in view of the circumstances relied on by the
management; and as the delay had been caused due to circums-
tances beyond the control of the appellant, this was a fit
case for condoning the delay if in law the court had the
power to do so. The Labour Court, however, held that the
relevant provisions are mandatory and it hence has no power
to condone the delay, even though the circumstances
warranted such condonation in this case. In this view, the
Labour Court held that as the orders of dismissal have not
been passed within six months of the misconduct coming
(1)[1963] (1) L. L.J. 790.