Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 cites

Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co.Ltd. & Anr on 4 May, 1979

The view expressed in Delhi Cloth Mill's case (supra) that before the proceedings are closed, an opportunity to adduce evidence would be given if a suitable request for such opportunity is made by the employer to the Tribunal, has been reiterated in Sankar Chakrabarty's case after observing that on the question as to the stage as to when leave to adduce further evidence is to be sought for, the decision of this Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. has not overruled the decision of this Court in Delhi Cloth Mill's case. There is no dispute in the present case that before the closure of the proceedings before the Tribunal, payer was made by the employer to lead evidence in support of the impugned order of dismissal. Hence, denial of the opportunity to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in support of the order of dismissal cannot be justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 350 - D A Desai - Full Document

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh on 11 January, 1972

The view expressed in Delhi Cloth Mill's case (supra) that before the proceedings are closed, an opportunity to adduce evidence would be given if a suitable request for such opportunity is made by the employer to the Tribunal, has been reiterated in Sankar Chakrabarty's case after observing that on the question as to the stage as to when leave to adduce further evidence is to be sought for, the decision of this Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. has not overruled the decision of this Court in Delhi Cloth Mill's case. There is no dispute in the present case that before the closure of the proceedings before the Tribunal, payer was made by the employer to lead evidence in support of the impugned order of dismissal. Hence, denial of the opportunity to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in support of the order of dismissal cannot be justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 338 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Management Of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd vs Its Workmen on 27 July, 1962

Mr. Pai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that such permission has been refused by the Tribunal by indicating that although the enquiry was properly held, the finding in such enquiry was perverse and in such circumstances, no opportunity to lead evidences should be given. Such view according to Mr. Pai is not justified inasmuch as it has been held in Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (1963 (3) SCR 461) that even when finding is perverse (see page 468) the whole issue is at large before the Tribunal and it would be entitled to deal with the merits of the dispute itself, when it would be open to the employer to adduce additional evidence. Mr.Phadnis, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, contends that was the position in law before insertion of Section 11 A in the Industrial Disputes Act, but this section has altered the position.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 82 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1