Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.41 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 9 November, 1964
5.In Hind Construction & Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Workmen2 this Court observed:
Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007
In cases where the power under Section
11A was exercised and as to what relief was to be given in cases of illegal
terminations came to be considered by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal reported in (2007) 2 SCC 433. In paragraph
20, the Supreme Court held as follows:
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
24.A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the
refusal to grant approval in an application filed under Section 33(2)(b) by the
employer vide its judgment in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram
Gopal Sharma reported in (2002) 2 SCC 244 in paragraph 14 had observed as
follows:
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
6.The enquiry was started on 8.1.2002 and concluded by the report of the
enquiry officer dated 2.3.2002. On the basis of the same, the second respondent
was given a notice asking to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed
from service for the proved charges. The second respondent moved the Principal
Bench of this Court with W.P.No.10567 of 2002 challenging the show cause notice.
He had also obtained an interim stay of show cause notice. The said writ
petition was finally disposed of by an order dated 23.7.2002. The show cause
notice issued by the petitioner corporation was held to be invalid as it was
issued after agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and only on the
question of penalty, he was asked to give explanation. The Supreme Court in ECIL
Vs. B.Karunakar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 has held that a notice must be
given before agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer.