Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
13. Tested in the light of this, I cannot hold that the discretion has been improperly exercised in this case. In the domestic enquiry, the workman did not take a defiant attitude as seen from his reply to the questions. Therefore, now to say, that because he defied the clear instructions of the management and thereby left a trial of indiscipline, would be something which cannot be countenanced. Again, in reply to the second show cause notice, the workman denied the charges though he does not specifically say that punishment was not warranted. Even otherwise, the very purpose of enacting S. 11A of the Act is to confer a jurisdiction on the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, and such a discretion could be exercised judiciously depending upon the seriousness of the charges and the circumstances of the case. I should hold, it has been so done, in the instant case. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in the case already referred to in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, [1980-I L.L.J. 137], in paragraph 68 at page 153 has observed as follows :
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
11. The only question that requires to be decided is whether the workman's defiance of the instructions of the management could be considered to be a serious misconduct. I can straightway say, I am not persuaded to hold that it is a serious misconduct as would warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. My reasons are hereunder. After the introduction of S. 11A of the Act, it is well open to the Labour Court to interfere in cases where it considers that the punishment is out of proportion to the charge levelled. In the instant case, call it either a day's absence or defiance of the instructions of the management, I do not think either of them would be such a serious misconduct as to deserve the punishment of dismissal. It is true, that even a single act of indiscipline or misconduct would be enough or would entail the serious punishment. But, there cannot be any axiomatic rule in this regard. The scope of S. 11A of the Act came up for consideration in The Workman of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and others, [1973-I L.L.J. 278]. It is true, cogent reasons will have to be given for interfering with the quantum of punishment.
Sri Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Labour Court And Anr. on 4 January, 1980
In Sri Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court and another, [1980-I L.L.J. 425] at page 429, it was observed as follows :
M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 5 May, 1972
9. The fact that the workman was employed for a long period of thirteen years is neither here nor there because the prior conduct need not be taken into consideration if the present misconduct alleged is bad and serious in nature. In this case, the misconduct was of a deliberate defiance of the instructions of the management and in fact, the workman was a leader, who hoarded others to defy the orders of the management. For all these reasons, according to the learned counsel for the management, the exercise of the discretion under S. 11A of the Act is totally unwarranted. In reply to this, the learned counsel for the workman would urge that the misconduct here is only of a day's absence. It is not such a serious offence. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court was of the view, as seen from M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and others, [1972-II L.L.J. 259], that the only available holiday to a workman in Sunday and even in such a case when the workman was dismissed, the reinstatement was ordered and wages granted.
Management Of Binny Limited vs Additional Labour Court And Anr. on 21 February, 1979
Before exercise of that discretion under S. 11A of the Act, cogent reasons will have to be given as laid down in Management of Binny Limited v. Additional Labour Court, Madras and another, [1979-II L.L.J. 280] and in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court and another, [1980-I L.L.J. 425].
The New Maneck Chowk Spinning And ... vs The Textile Labour ... on 7 December, 1960
Before exercise of that discretion under S. 11A of the Act, cogent reasons will have to be given as laid down in Management of Binny Limited v. Additional Labour Court, Madras and another, [1979-II L.L.J. 280] and in Sri Gopalakrishna Mills pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court and another, [1980-I L.L.J. 425].
Workmen Of The Motor Industries Co. Ltd vs Management Of Motor Industries Co. ... on 15 April, 1969
8. The reasons given by the labour Court that because the other workers tendered apology and they have been let off and that there was an unequal treatment for the workman is again wrong because the other workers admitted the guilt and tendered apology. Therefore, no question of unequal treatment would ever arise. The decisions in Workman of Tanning and Finishing Unit, Vinnamanagalam v. Management, Tanning and Finishing Unit and another, (55) F.J.R. 170 and Workman of the Motor industrial Co., Ltd. v. Management of Motor Industries Co., Ltd., Bangalore, [1969-II L.L.J. 673] at 681, are pressed into service in support of this submission.
1