Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)
Management Of Continental ... vs Workmen Of Continental Construction ... on 1 April, 2003 cites

D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993

Be that as it may, Sri Naik would contend that in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Limited (supra), it was not permissible for the management to straight-away terminate the services of workmen concerned without complying with the principles of natural justice and conducting domestic enquiry. Even assuming that the refusal of the four workmen not to report for duty at the transferred places within the stipulated time, could be brought under Clause (16) of the CSOs, since the management did not frame any charges and hold any departmental enquiry against them, the order of the learned single Judge on merit is fully justified. With regard to probationary workmen, Sri. Naik would maintain that" though the discharge order seems to be discharge simpliciter, what influenced the management of the company to take such a drastic step is that he had become an office-bearer of the Union and therefore, the -said action of the management should also be regarded as an instance of victimisation of labour tantamounting to unfair labour practice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 597 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

National Engineering Industries Ltd vs Hanuman on 25 July, 1967

In that case, the Court held that under the relevant standing order, an employee remaining absent for eight consecutive days without leave shall be deemed to have terminated his contract and thus relinquished or abandoned his employment. The Court also held that the fact that such absence is also a misconduct under the standing order would not affect the position as it is not incumbent on the management to take recourse to the standing order providing for disciplinary proceedings for such absence on the part of any employee. A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries v. Hanuman, , held that when a standing order provides that a workman will lose his lien on his appointment in case he does not join his duty within eight days of the expiry of his leave, it obviously means that his services are automatically terminated on the happening of the contingency; where a standing order provides that a workman would lose his lien on his appointment if he does not join his duty within certain time after his leave expires, it can only mean that his service stands automatically terminated when the contingency happens.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 43 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

22. Therefore, it is now well established law that irrespective of the nature of an administrative action, whether it is quasi-judicial or pure administrative, if such administrative action has the effect of affecting Civil rights of a person, principles of natural Justice and fair play should be complied with before the action is taken. Power to determine contract of employment vested in the employer is an administrative act and when the same is exercised, it would certainly affect the legal rights of the employees concerned. That power has to be exercised judiciously and in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. Therefore, the law laid down in O.K. Yadav's case (supra), is in consonance with the enunciation of law in Kraipak (supra) and followed subsequently in large number of cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next