Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)
Amit Kumar Agrawal vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. And Ors on 19 April, 2023 cites

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

In ECIL v. B. Karunakar, this Court held that where the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is quashed by the court/tribunal on some technical ground, the au- thority must be given an opportunity to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. How- ever, for the purpose of holding fresh enquiry, the delinquent is to be reinstated and may be put un- der suspension. The question of back wages, etc. is determined by the disciplinary authority in ac- cordance with law after the fresh enquiry is con- cluded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors on 6 April, 2011

5. Reserving liberty to the disciplinary authority to com- mence the inquiry from the defective stage and conclude the in- quiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Since impugned orders are set aside on technical ground therefore the disciplinary authority is hereby directed to examine as to whether the petitioner is required to be reinstated or placed under suspension in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Patna High Court CWJC No.8235 of 2013 dt.19-04-2023 5/8 the case of ECIL vs. B. Karunakaran reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Chairman-cum-Managing Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142. Paragraphs 46 to 50 reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 416 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

R. Thiruvirkolam vs The Presiding Officer & Anr on 18 November, 1996

47. It is a settled legal proposition that the result of the fresh enquiry in such a case re- lates back to the date of termination. The sub- missions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the result of the enquiry in such a fact situa- tion relates back to the date of imposition of pun- ishment, earlier stands fortified by a large num- ber of judgments of this Court and particularly in R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Kala Singh and Graphite India Ltd. v. Durgapur Projects Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 130 - J S Verma - Full Document

Punjab Diary Development Corporation vs Kala Singh Etc on 7 May, 1997

47. It is a settled legal proposition that the result of the fresh enquiry in such a case re- lates back to the date of termination. The sub- missions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the result of the enquiry in such a fact situa- tion relates back to the date of imposition of pun- ishment, earlier stands fortified by a large num- ber of judgments of this Court and particularly in R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Kala Singh and Graphite India Ltd. v. Durgapur Projects Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 145 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Graphite India Ltd. And Another vs Durgapur Projects Ltd. And Others on 27 August, 1999

47. It is a settled legal proposition that the result of the fresh enquiry in such a case re- lates back to the date of termination. The sub- missions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the result of the enquiry in such a fact situa- tion relates back to the date of imposition of pun- ishment, earlier stands fortified by a large num- ber of judgments of this Court and particularly in R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Kala Singh and Graphite India Ltd. v. Durgapur Projects Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 104 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mitthu Singh on 18 August, 2006

49. The issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this Court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the court or tribunal, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary. Power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is reinstated, it would not automatically make him entitled to back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of reinstatement. The fac- tual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate authority/court or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but flexible and realistic. (Vide U.P. SRTC v. Mitthu Singh , Akola Taluka Education Society v. Shivaji and Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 129 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Secretary, Akola Taluka Education ... vs Shivaji And Ors on 5 April, 2007

49. The issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this Court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the court or tribunal, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary. Power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is reinstated, it would not automatically make him entitled to back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of reinstatement. The fac- tual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate authority/court or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but flexible and realistic. (Vide U.P. SRTC v. Mitthu Singh , Akola Taluka Education Society v. Shivaji and Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 87 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M.D.,Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K.Ltd vs Kashinath Ganapati Kambale on 12 December, 2008

49. The issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this Court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the court or tribunal, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary. Power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is reinstated, it would not automatically make him entitled to back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of reinstatement. The fac- tual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate authority/court or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but flexible and realistic. (Vide U.P. SRTC v. Mitthu Singh , Akola Taluka Education Society v. Shivaji and Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 116 - S B Sinha - Full Document

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Prabhat Kumar on 6 April, 2023

6. It is to be noted that Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down in the case of MD ECILin the later case in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Prabhat Kumar re- ported in 2022 Live Law SC 736. Insofar as whether petitioner is required to be reinstated or placed under suspension is concerned, in this regard, the disciplinary authority is hereby directed to take a decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further, disciplinary authority is hereby directed to reg- ulate the intervening period from the date of dismissal till rein- statement or suspension and further period from the date of com- mencement of defective inquiry stage till passing of final order is required to be regulated in accordance with law. Such speaking or- der shall be passed in regulating the intervening period within a period of two months from the date of passing final order in disci- plinary proceedings.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1