Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)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 ......"
Section 11 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
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:
Guj State Road Transport Corpn. vs S.T. Karmachari Mandal on 5 August, 2003
26.This Court further notes that the checking team recovered unaccounted
excess cash from the Respondent/Workman based on statement of
passengers recorded on the spot. The quantum of amount recovered
holds no relevance here as such an act committed by
Respondent/Workman is a gross misconduct amounting to violation of
fiduciary duty. The petitioner rightly placed reliance on the case of
Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane reported as (2005) 3 SCC 254 in
which following observation was made:
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Gian Chand on 14 March, 2018
In
order to substantiate his arguments learned counsel relied on Judgment
dated 03.09.2008 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Delhi
Transport Corporation Vs Gian Chand; M.L. Singla Vs Punjab
National Bank and Anothers reported as (2018) 18 SCC 21; State of
Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported as (1977) 2 SCC 491, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma reported as
(2010) 6 SCC 555 and North West Karnataka RTC v. H.H. Pujar,
reported as (2008) 12 SCC 698.
Ghanshyam Sharma vs Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road ... on 1 August, 2000
"23. Ghanshyam Sharma v Regional Manager, Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, [(2000) 33 LLJ 588
Raj.] was again a case where conductor was held guilty
of misconduct of carrying passenger without ticket. On a
reference being made, the Labour Court invoked its
jurisdiction under Section 11(A) and while upholding the
finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, it
directed the respondent's reinstatement with continuity of
service but without back wages. The learned Single Judge
set aside the award which decision was reversed by the
Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court.