Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.29 seconds)
Ganesh Rajan Servai vs Bennett Coleman And Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 1 February, 1988 cites

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

"But even if the view were taken that the impugned order of termination of service of the respondent was punitive in character and could not have been passed save and except as a result of a disciplinary inquiry held under Clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23, the impugned order cannot be struck down as invalid on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of these Standing Orders, since the appellant availed of the opportunity open to it before the Labour Court and adduced sufficient evidence justifying the action taken by the management. The appellant produced satisfactory evidence to show that the impugned order terminating the service of the respondent was justified and hence the impugned order must be sustained despite its having been passed without complying with the requirements of Clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23. We are fortified in this view by a catena of decisions of this Court where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has in fact been held as required by the relevant Standing Orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. (See The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its workmen, Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen , Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory , Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh , State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain , Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Management and Cooper Engineering Limited v. P.P. Mundhe ".
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 338 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Workmen Of Motipur Sugar Factory ... vs Motipur Sugar Factory on 30 March, 1965

"But even if the view were taken that the impugned order of termination of service of the respondent was punitive in character and could not have been passed save and except as a result of a disciplinary inquiry held under Clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23, the impugned order cannot be struck down as invalid on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of these Standing Orders, since the appellant availed of the opportunity open to it before the Labour Court and adduced sufficient evidence justifying the action taken by the management. The appellant produced satisfactory evidence to show that the impugned order terminating the service of the respondent was justified and hence the impugned order must be sustained despite its having been passed without complying with the requirements of Clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23. We are fortified in this view by a catena of decisions of this Court where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has in fact been held as required by the relevant Standing Orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. (See The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its workmen, Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen , Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory , Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh , State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain , Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Management and Cooper Engineering Limited v. P.P. Mundhe ".
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 210 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973

Even in paragraphs 33, 42 and 46 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that if there has been no enquiry held by the employer or if the enquiry held is defective it is open to the employer even now to adduce for the first time before. the Tribunal justifying the order of discharge or dismissal. Citing the case of the Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. their Lordships observed that it was specifically contended before the Supreme Court by the workmen therein that when an employer had held no enquiry, as required by the standing orders, it was not open to him to adduce evidence before the Tribunal for the first time and justify the order of discharge. The said contention was rejected and it was held that if the enquiry was defective or no enquiry had been held as required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the Tribunal and the employer would have to justify, on evidence as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper. Considering the scope of an enquiry under Section 33 of the Act, the Supreme Court observed in para 46 that though the Tribunal is exercising only a very limited jurisdiction under this Section nevertheless, it would have applied its mind before giving permission or approval. Therefore, this judgment is really on the point that the mere fact that no enquiry or defective enquiry has been held by the employer would not deprive the employer from adducing evidence before the Tribunal and in that case the question would be at large and the employer will have to prove not only the misconduct of the workmen but also justification for his dismissal or discharge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 654 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next