Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
Sadhu Ram vs Prtc Patiala And Anr on 24 December, 2014 cites

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

8. It is by now well settled that after the introduction of Section 11-A of the Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of mis-conduct. Such area of discretion is certainly not unlimited and can be exercised under Section 11-A of the Act only on existence of certain factors like punishment being shockingly dis-proportionate to the gravity of the mis-conduct or the existence of any mitigating circumstance which require the reduction as regards punishment/penalty. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 (1) SCT 617; U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors., 2000(2) SCT 312 and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.Naravade, 2005(2) SCT 236.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors on 15 March, 2000

8. It is by now well settled that after the introduction of Section 11-A of the Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of mis-conduct. Such area of discretion is certainly not unlimited and can be exercised under Section 11-A of the Act only on existence of certain factors like punishment being shockingly dis-proportionate to the gravity of the mis-conduct or the existence of any mitigating circumstance which require the reduction as regards punishment/penalty. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 (1) SCT 617; U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors., 2000(2) SCT 312 and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.Naravade, 2005(2) SCT 236.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 128 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005

8. It is by now well settled that after the introduction of Section 11-A of the Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of mis-conduct. Such area of discretion is certainly not unlimited and can be exercised under Section 11-A of the Act only on existence of certain factors like punishment being shockingly dis-proportionate to the gravity of the mis-conduct or the existence of any mitigating circumstance which require the reduction as regards punishment/penalty. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 (1) SCT 617; U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors., 2000(2) SCT 312 and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.Naravade, 2005(2) SCT 236.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 265 - Full Document
1