Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Sain Steel Products vs Naipal Singh And Ors. on 15 February, 2001
3. Sri.V.S.Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits on instructions that petitioner restricts his
claim to one of continuity of service only for the purpose
of terminal benefits. Learned Counsel points to the
observation of the learned Single Judge in the order
4
W.P.29300/13
dated 25.2.2009 Annexure-A to submit that interference
with the award of the Labour Court was on the premise
that the charges even though appears proved, the
punishment of dismissal being shockingly
disproportionate is modified to one of reinstatement by
denying five increments with cumulative effect.
According to the learned Counsel, the word
'reinstatement' takes into fold not only continuity of
service but also consequential benefits as held by the
Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gurpreet
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others1 and another
opinion of the Apex Court in Sanat Kumar Dwivedi vs
Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank2 and Sain
Steel Products Vs. Naipal Singh and others3.
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007
In Sanat Kumar Dwivedi's2 case supra, the
question as to whether continuity of service and
consequential benefits should follow as a matter of
course whenever reinstatement is directed, did not
directly or indirectly fall for consideration as in
J.K.Synthetics Ltd.'s case supra and therefore that
judgment too has no application.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2005
9. This judgment, in my considered opinion, is
inapplicable. The factual matrix, in this case being the
petitioner when charged with misappropriation of public
revenues, this Court found that the charge appears to
have been proved, hence not a case where the petitioner
was exonerated honorably of the charge of
misappropriation. In other words, the order of
termination from service for proved misconduct was
interfered with by exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India insofar as it relates to quantum of punishment, on
12
W.P.29300/13
finding that the punishment of dismissal was found
shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
proved. Therefore, the decision of Gurpreet Singh case
would not aid the case of the petitioner.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Sanat Kumar Dwivedi vs Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... on 9 August, 2000
3. Sri.V.S.Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits on instructions that petitioner restricts his
claim to one of continuity of service only for the purpose
of terminal benefits. Learned Counsel points to the
observation of the learned Single Judge in the order
4
W.P.29300/13
dated 25.2.2009 Annexure-A to submit that interference
with the award of the Labour Court was on the premise
that the charges even though appears proved, the
punishment of dismissal being shockingly
disproportionate is modified to one of reinstatement by
denying five increments with cumulative effect.
According to the learned Counsel, the word
'reinstatement' takes into fold not only continuity of
service but also consequential benefits as held by the
Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gurpreet
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others1 and another
opinion of the Apex Court in Sanat Kumar Dwivedi vs
Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank2 and Sain
Steel Products Vs. Naipal Singh and others3.
1