Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Employers Of Firestone Tyre And Rubber ... vs Their Workmen on 22 August, 1967 cites

Sur Enamel And Stampingworks (P) Ltd vs Their Workmen on 7 May, 1963

This leaves over the contention that before examining the witnesses Subramaniam was subjected to a cross-examination. This was said to offend the principles of natural justice and reliance was placed on Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd., v. Its Workmen and Anr.(1), Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen(2), Meenglas Tea Estate V. Its Workmen(3) and Associated Cement Companies v. Their Workmen & Anr.(4). (1) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 78 (3) [1963] 2 L.L.J.367. (3) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 392. (4) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 396.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 108 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963

This leaves over the contention that before examining the witnesses Subramaniam was subjected to a cross-examination. This was said to offend the principles of natural justice and reliance was placed on Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd., v. Its Workmen and Anr.(1), Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen(2), Meenglas Tea Estate V. Its Workmen(3) and Associated Cement Companies v. Their Workmen & Anr.(4). (1) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 78 (3) [1963] 2 L.L.J.367. (3) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 392. (4) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 396.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 240 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

The Associated Cement Companies ... vs Its Workmen & Another on 5 May, 1959

These cases no doubt lay down that before a delinquent is asked anything, all the evidence against him must be led. This cannot be an invariable rule in all cases. The situation is different where the accusation is based on a matter of record or the facts are admitted. In such a case it may be permissible to draw the attention of the delinquent to the evidence on the record which goes against him and which if he cannot satisfactorily explain must lead' to a conclusion of guilt. In certain cases it may even be fair to the delinquent to take his version first so that the enquiry may cover the point of difference and the witnesses may be questioned properly on the aspect of the case suggested by him. It is all a question of justice and fairplay. If the second procedure leads to a just decision of the disputed points and is fairer to the delinquent than the ordinary procedure of examining evidence against him first, no exception can be taken to it. It is, however, wise to ask the delinquent whether he would like to make a statement first or wait till the evidence is over but the failure to question him in this way does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is caused. It is only when the person enquired against seems to have been held at a disadvantage or has objected to such a course that the enquiry may be said to be vitiated. It must, however, be emphasised that in all cases in which the facts in controversy are disputed the procedure ordinarily to be followed is the one laid down by this Court in the cited cases. The procedure of examining the delinquent first may be adopted in a clear case only. As illustration we may mention one such case which was recently before us. There a bank clerk had allowed overdrafts to customers much beyond the limits sanctioned by the bank. The clerk had no authority to do so. Before the enquiry commenced he admitted his fault and asked to be excused. He was questioned first to find out if there were any extenuating circumstances before the formal evidence was led to complete the picture of his guilt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 254 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

The Tata Oil Mills Co., Ltd vs Workmen & Anr on 15 February, 1963

This leaves over the contention that before examining the witnesses Subramaniam was subjected to a cross-examination. This was said to offend the principles of natural justice and reliance was placed on Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd., v. Its Workmen and Anr.(1), Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen(2), Meenglas Tea Estate V. Its Workmen(3) and Associated Cement Companies v. Their Workmen & Anr.(4). (1) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 78 (3) [1963] 2 L.L.J.367. (3) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 392. (4) [1963] 2 L.L.J. 396.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1