Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.55 seconds)
A.Kanakaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 20 November, 2024 cites

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

On the same lines is a latter decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors. [(1976) 2 SCR 280] wherein a Bench of three Learned Judges speaking through Goswami.J. laid down the parameters of the term ‘victimisation’ as understood in labour laws and as contemplated by industrial jurisprudence. It has been observed that ordinarily a person is victimised if he is made a victim or a scapegoat and is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt of his own. If actual fault or guilt meriting punishment is established. Such action will be rid of the taint of victimisation. The aforesaid observations obviously refer to factual victimisation. But then follows further elucidation of the term ‘victimisation’ to the following effect:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - P K Goswami - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Tamil Nadu Banks Deposit Collectors ... on 5 December, 2007

24. Thus, it is evident that the certified standing orders at the management’s establishment mandate a formal inquiry process and do not permit dispensing with it. In such a case, when the management leads evidence directly before the Labour Court, then the satisfaction of such evidence is that of the Labour Court and not of the management. This position of law was well explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its decision in Union Bank of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20 WP.No.2412 of 2003 India v. Tamil Nadu Banks Deposit Collectors Union and another reported in 2007(12) SCC 585. It was observed in paragraph 8 as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M/S. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shri Jai Singh And Others on 20 September, 1961

There three cases were further considered by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21 WP.No.2412 of 2003 this court in Bharat Sugar Mills Limited v. Shri Jai Singh, and reference was also made to the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Shri Ram Swarath Sinha v. Belaund Sugar C. [[1954] L.A.C. 697]. It was pointed out that “the import effect of commission to hold an enquiry was merely this: that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case but would decide for itself on the evidence adduced whether the charges have really been made out:. It is true that three of these cases, except Phulbari Tea Estate’s case were on applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But in principle we see no difference whether the matter comes before the Tribunal for approval under Section 33 or on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the Tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper. Phulbari Ta Estate’s was on a reference under s. 10, and the same principle was applied there also, the only difference being that in that case, there https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22 WP.No.2412 of 2003 was an enquiry though it was defective. A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” [Emphasis added]
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 90 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next