Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central ... vs The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara ... on 21 September, 2000
In South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakary Naukarara Sangha and Ors. (supra) it has also been emphasized that in exercise of jurisdiction and/or discretion under Section 11A of the said Act, two important considerations which deter the learned Tribunal from interfering with an order passed in a domestic enquiry are the need for maintaining discipline in an organization which would mean that all acts of insubordination have to be dealt with severely and the loss of confidence of the employer in the workman concerned. The aforesaid considerations and/or the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would justify the Hon'ble High Court to set aside an order of the learned Tribunal passed under Section 11A of the said Act interfering with an order so passed in a domestic enquiry.
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (supra) summed up the position which is reproduced hereunder:
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M. Chandrasekhar Reddy & Ors on 25 January, 2005
In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Ors. (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that without giving any cogent reasons for not accepting the view of the employer when the learned Tribunal is accepting that a proper enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding arrived at regarding the misconduct, the Tribunal, even though it has now power to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the management, will have to give very cogent reasons for not accepting the view of the employer and further the learned Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision of a management under Section 11A of the said Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly, disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision and without such reasons the Court held in the given facts as stated in the said decision set aside the order of reinstatement of the delinquent workman and the order of dismissal passed by the company was upheld.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005
In M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (supra) it is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the punishment of termination awarded for hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstances established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that this clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the organization. Discipline at the workplace in an organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.
Section 17 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Divisional Controller,Ksrtc (Nwkrtc) vs A.T. Mane on 27 September, 2004
In Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when an employee is found guilty of misappropriating a corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such case there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that when a domestic Tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the Appellate Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived at by the domestic Tribunal. Domestic Tribunal accepted the evidence and found the respondent's guilt and the Court in such cases coming to the question of quantum of punishment, should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment.