Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.39 seconds)
Glaxo Laboratories vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ... on 6 October, 1983 cites

Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975

Reference was next made to Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors. The allegation was of vicitimisation which found favour with the Tribunal and the High Court. This Court while allowing the appeal of the employer held that the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in reaching the conclusion that the management was guilty of victimisation. We fail to see how this decision has any relevance to the point under discussion in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Mahendra Singh Dhantwal vs Hindustan Motors Ltd. & Ors on 7 May, 1976

Relying on these observations, Mr. Shanti Bhushan urged that this Court has in terms held that there can be some other misconduct not enumerated in the standing order and for which the employer may take appropriate action This observation cannot be viewed divorced from the facts of the case. What stared in the face of the court in that case was that the employer had raised a technical objection ignoring the past history of litigation between the parties that application under Sec. 33A was not maintainable. It is in this context that this Court observed that the previous action might have been the outcome of some misconduct not enumerated in the standing order. But the extracted observation cannot be elevated to a proposition of law that some misconduct neither defined nor enumerated and which may be believed by the employer to be misconduct ex post facto would expose the workman to a penalty. The law will have to move two centuries backward to accept such a construction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 51 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Salem-Erode Electricity Distribition ... vs Salem-Eroda Electricity Distribution ... on 15 October, 1965

But it is not necessary to go so far because in 249 Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Employees Union this Court in terms held that the object underlying the Act was to introduce uniformity of terms and conditions of employment in respect of workmen belonging to the same category and discharging the same or similar work under an industrial establishment, and that these terms and conditions of industrial employment should be well-established and should be known to employees before they accept the employment. If such is the object, no vague undefined notion about any act, may be innocuous, which from the employer's point of view may be misconduct but not provided for in the standing order for which a penalty can be imposed, cannot be incorporated in the standing orders. From certainty of conditions of employment, we would have to return to the days of hire and fire which reverse movement is hardly justified.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Western India Match Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 3 May, 1963

In this connection, we may also refer to Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Workmen in which this Court held that any condition of service if inconsistent with certified standing orders, the same would not prevail and the certified standing orders would have precedence over all such agreements. There is really one interesting observation in this which deserves noticing. Says the Court:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 101 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next