Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
V.P. Ahuja vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 6 March, 2000
In view of the findings recorded in the
earlier paragraphs of the judgment, the ratio
laid down by the Supreme Court need not be
distinguished and the principle laid down in
V.P. Ahuja's case stands complied with in the
present case. The petitioner got an opportunity
of being heard in the course of adjudication
proceedings before the Labour Court.
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
Mr.
Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance upon paragraph 43 in the case
of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) in support
of his submission. Paragraph 43 of the report
reads thus 1999-I-LLJ-1054 at p. 1067: :
Bishan Lal Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 12 January, 1978
"43. As pointed out in Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana (supra) an ordinary enquiry by a show cause might be sufficient for the purpose of deciding whether the probationer could be continued. But where the findings regarding misconduct are arrived at without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, then the termination order will be vitiated.
Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs Management Of Pan American World ... on 3 December, 1986
5. The 6th Labour Court disposed of the reference holding that the petitioner was not entitled for reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. It is in this backdrop the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Award dated November 29, 1997 and also the impugned judgment dated November 29, 1997 passed by the Labour Court below in Miscellaneous Application (IDA) No. 20 of 1999 for setting aside the ex parte award dated November 29, 1997. As recorded earlier, I need not enter into the controversy whether the petitioner had sufficient cause to remain absent before the Labour Court when the reference was finally heard, since learned counsel for the parties requested me to hear writ petition on merits and on the basis of material placed on record. It may be noted that LODHA, J., while remanding the matter had specifically observed that "the evidence was led by the employer by producing Mr. Shenoy and Exhibit C-3 on record and, however, it was found that the Labour Court has not adverted to the evidence led by the petitioner-management on the point of loss of confidence and unsatisfactory work". Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of Pan American World Airways Inc. and Ors. , it was further held that "the Apex Court has held that the termination of service on account of loss of confidence amounts to stigma and the management can justify termination in the course of adjudication. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Labour Court to examine the evidence led by the petitioner on the ground of loss of confidence and unsatisfactory work and then give a positive finding whether the termination was justified or not." It was also observed by R.M. LODHA, J. that "the Labour Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law by not considering the evidence led by the petitioner on the point of loss of confidence justifying workmen's termination and, therefore, the order dated October 26, 1994 cannot be sustained and matter needs to be sent back to the 2nd Labour Court for fresh decision in accordance with law." Keeping the observation made by R.M. lODHA, J., learned counsel appearing for the parties concentrated their arguments on the issue as to whether the evidence led by the petitioner-management on the point of loss of confidence and unsatisfactory work was sufficient to terminate the service of the present petitioner on that count.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd vs Industrial Court on 23 February, 1994
In support, Mr. Varghese placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. v. The Industrial Court and Ors. 1990-II-LLJ-236. He submitted that upon completion of three months of uninterrupted service by the probationer he has to be made permanent in that post by the management within a period of seven days from the date of completion of the probation period. It was also pleaded that the order of termination on the ground of loss of confidence was a punitive order or it amounts to stigma, which ought to have been preceded by a domestic enquiry and if no such enquiry was held, the action of termination cannot be said to be bona fide action. Mr. Varghese emphasised that the standing orders were applicable and the Labour Court ought to have recorded its findings on the applicability of the standing order. He further submitted that since the petitioner deemed to have been confirmed under the provisions of standing order the respondent-company ought to have held domestic enquiry which could not have been dispensed with by the respondent-company in view of the provisions of standing order.