Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
T.C.C. Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs Labour Court on 13 September, 1988 cites

Firestone Tyre And Rubber Company Of ... vs The Workmen Employed Represented By ... on 22 July, 1981

11. It is true that the Labour Court had a duty to take a decision on the question of the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. It decided that in favour or the petitioner. I am not persuaded to accept me submission that once the Labour Court found in favour of the employer on this preliminary issue, the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to consider the question whether there was legally acceptable evidence before the enquiry officer to sustain the conclusion which he reached. As a matter of fact, it was the obligation of the Labour Court to satisfy itself whether the dismissal was justified or not. The Supreme Court in the decision in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen : 1967 (2) LLJ 715 had held that the Labour Court was obliged to consider the propriety and justifiability of the penalty of discharge or dismissal imposed by the employer on the concerned employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 41 - A C Gupta - Full Document

All India Reserve Bank Employees ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 23 April, 1965

8. The question whether the designation of a person as Secretary of a Co-operative Society would disentitle him to claim to be a workman under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act was considered by this Court in Thirurangadi Service Co-op. Bank 1981 K.L.T. 813. Referring to the decisions of the S.C in Reserve Bank Employees ' Association v. Reserve Bank : 1965-II LLJ 175 and Burmah Shell Co. v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association 1970 (2) LLJ. 590, this Court held that the duties assigned to the Secretary of the Co-operative Society were mostly clerical and to some extent supervisory. It was therefore held that he was a workman coming within the definition contained in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The same view was expressed by my learned brother Khalid, J. in the decision reported in peringottukur-issi Service Co-op. Bank Lta. v. Balakrish-nan 1981 K.L.T. (SN) 57, case No. 107 in respect of an employee of a Co-operative Society who was designated as Manager.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 85 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda And Others on 27 September, 1983

I do not understand the decisions referred to by counsel for the petitioner to cast an obligation on the Labour Court to give a fresh opportunity to the management to lead evidence before he can exercise his power under Section 11A of the I.D. Act. What the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is ordinarily expected to do in exercise of the powers under Section 11A is to satisfy itself as to whether the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and if its finding be in the negative, to set aside the order of dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman. It is true that in cases whether the Labour Court found that the enquiry was not properly conducted, or that no enquiry at all was conducted preceding the order of dismissal, the employer may have a right to adduce fresh evidence if he had sought such opportunity at the earliest possible moment. That position is clear from the decision of the S.C. in Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda : 1983 (2) LLJ 415. That decision does not however, entitle the employer to insist that even in a case where the Labour Court found that the enquiry was properly conducted, the Tribunal or Labour Court shall call upon the management to adduce fresh evidence before it proceeded to re-appreciate the evidence available, before the enquiry officer, to consider whether the order of dismissal or discharge was justified or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 258 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next