Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Delhi Transport Corporation vs N.L. Kakkar Presiding Officer, ... on 17 March, 2004 cites

State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977

"The alleged violation of natural justice pre-supposes that it was necessary that the passenger witness should have been made available for cross examination. This assumption is baseless. Firstly, the notice by registered post sent to the witness was received back with the remark that the witness had left the address and the notice could not, therefore, be served on that address. This made it impossible for the Inquiry Officer to serve the passenger witness. Secondly, the question whether the hear-say evidence of the checking staff about the statement of the passenger should have been admitted in evidence by the Inquiry Officer because of the impossibility of enforcing his attendance which may arise in a suitable case did not arise in this case. Even when no such impossibility of enforcing the attendance of the passenger was proved the Supreme Court observed in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh ......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 650 - V R Iyer - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997

In a similar fact situation, a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of Haryana vs. Ram Chander 1976 (2) SLR 690 laid the foundation for its discussion in paragraph 3 of the Report. It was held that a domestic tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of evidence and can evolve its own procedure as long as it is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was said :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 98 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

The North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs S.S. Poleshi on 17 July, 2000

In North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. S.S. Poleshi, 2000 III CLR 203, the conductor of a bus had not issued tickets to some passengers despite taking the fare. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was dismissed from service. He raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court held that the charges against him were not proved because none of the passengers had been examined during the adjudication proceedings. A learned Single Judge upheld the view of the Labour Court. In appeal, the Division Bench relied upon Rattan Singh to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the penalty of dismissal from service.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - M Chellur - Full Document

North-West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs K.S. Raghunathappa on 25 March, 2003

31. Similarly, in North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. K.S. Raghunathappa, 2003-II-LLJ 989, the allegation against the conductor was that he had not issued tickets to six passengers despite having collected the fare from them. After a disciplinary enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The Labour Court before whom an industrial dispute was raised held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper but the charge against the conductor was not proved, inter alia, because none of the passengers were examined. The Division Bench rejected the reasoning of the Labour Court after relying upon Rattan Singh. It was also held that apart from the statement of the passengers, there was other material such as unpunched tickets, offence memo checking report etc.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - S B Majage - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Daya Nand And Ors., Delhi ... on 7 May, 2002

In Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal (1979) XVI DLT 220, the Division Bench noted two competing principles, that is, non-reviewability of a finding of fact based on evidence and violation of the rules of natural justice. The Division Bench laid down the law on page 224 of the Report and then referred to and relied upon Rattan Singh in support of its conclusions. This is what the Division Bench said:
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 92 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs M.S. Patel And Anr. on 9 October, 1997

38. The view of the Gujarat High Court is to be found in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.S. Patel, 1998 II CLR 473. In that case, the conductor of a bus did not issue tickets to two groups of passengers. The checking staff made a report after taking the statements of the passengers. In a departmental enquiry, the conductor was held guilty of misconduct and dismissed from service. The Labour Court, however, upset the finding of the disciplinary authority and reinstated the workman. The Gujarat High Court held that it was not a criminal prosecution where the allegations have to be proved against the conductor beyond doubt. The checking staff had produced the statements of the passengers and had withstood cross-examination. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Singh, it was held that the finding of guilt against the conductor was not unjustified.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Sultan Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation And Ors. on 10 November, 1986

26. The above Division Bench decision was followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sultan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1987 I LLN 399. In that case, grant of approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the passenger witness who had given a statement against the petitioner was not examined and so the petitioner did not have any opportunity to cross-examine this witness and, therefore, the inquiry against him was vitiated.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1