Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.01 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Management Of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 10 September, 2004
Recently, in Muriadih Colliery BCC Ltd. v. Bihar
Colliery Kamgar Union this Court after
referring to and quoting the relevant passages
from Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya
Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Tournamulla Estate
v. Workmen held: (SCC p. 336, para 17)
"The courts below by condoning an
act of physical violence have
undermined the discipline in the
organisation, hence, in the above
factual backdrop, it can never be
said that the Industrial Tribunal
could have exercised its authority
under Section 11-A of the Act to
interfere with the punishment of
dismissal."
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005
It is not necessary to
multiply authorities on this question, since the
matter has been dealt with in detail in a recent
decision of this Court in Mahindra and
Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade. This Court
summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 141,
para 20)
"20 . It is no doubt true that after
introduction of Section 11-A in the
Industrial Disputes Act, certain
amount of discretion is vested with
the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal in interfering with the
quantum of punishment awarded by
the management where the
workman concerned is found guilty
of misconduct. The said area of
discretion has been very well defined
by the various judgments of this
Court referred to hereinabove and it
is certainly not unlimited as has
been observed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The
discretion which can be exercised
under Section 11-A is available only
on the existence of certain factors
like punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of
misconduct so as to disturb the
conscience of the court, or the
existence of any mitigating
circumstances which require the
reduction of the sentence, or the
past conduct of the workman which
may persuade the Labour Court to
reduce the punishment."
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil
Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh, this Court
after referring to the decision in State of
Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena also pointed out the
difference between the approaches to be made
in a criminal proceeding and a disciplinary
proceeding. This Court also pointed out that
when charges proved were grave, vis-?is the
establishment, interference with punishment
of dismissal could not be justified.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs R. Dhandapani on 25 November, 2005
In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Dhandapani,
[AIR 2006 SC 615] it was held as follows: .
New Shorrock Mills vs Maheshbhai T. Rao on 25 October, 1996
It may also be noticed that in Orissa Cement
Ltd. v. Adikanda Sahu and in New Shorrock
Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao this Court held that
use of abusive language against a superior,
justified punishment of dismissal. This Court
stated "punishment of dismissal for using
abusive language cannot be held to be
disproportionate". If that be the position
regarding verbal assault, we think that the
position regarding dismissal for physical
assault, must be found all the more justifiable.
Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M/S Bccl ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Through: ... on 22 February, 2005
Recently, in Muriadih Colliery BCC Ltd. v. Bihar
Colliery Kamgar Union this Court after
referring to and quoting the relevant passages
from Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya
Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Tournamulla Estate
v. Workmen held: (SCC p. 336, para 17)
"The courts below by condoning an
act of physical violence have
undermined the discipline in the
organisation, hence, in the above
factual backdrop, it can never be
said that the Industrial Tribunal
could have exercised its authority
under Section 11-A of the Act to
interfere with the punishment of
dismissal."
Management Of Tournamulla Estate vs Workmen on 26 March, 1973
Recently, in Muriadih Colliery BCC Ltd. v. Bihar
Colliery Kamgar Union this Court after
referring to and quoting the relevant passages
from Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya
Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Tournamulla Estate
v. Workmen held: (SCC p. 336, para 17)
"The courts below by condoning an
act of physical violence have
undermined the discipline in the
organisation, hence, in the above
factual backdrop, it can never be
said that the Industrial Tribunal
could have exercised its authority
under Section 11-A of the Act to
interfere with the punishment of
dismissal."