Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Dtc vs Mohinder Singh on 9 September, 2014 cites

Neeta Kaplish vs Presiding Officer Labour Court And Anr on 4 December, 1998

(e) The petitioner did not produce any document or witness to prove the misconduct of the respondent No.1. She rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr., 1999 LLR 122, wherein the Supreme Court held that after vitiation of inquiry records pertaining to domestic inquiry could not constitute material on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 123 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

The Haryana State Agricultural ... vs Sadhu Ram [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. ... on 8 April, 2008

"11. In the instant case also there is the evidence of the inspector who conducted the checking which establishes the misconduct of the respondent based on which a finding was given that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Based on the said finding, the W.P.(C) 1462/2011 Page 4 of 9 disciplinary authority has punished the respondent by an order of dismissal. But the Labour Court, and the learned single Judge rejected the said finding and set aside the punishment imposed solely on the ground that the evidence of the passengers concerned was not adduced and their statements were not recorded by the inspector which as stated in the Rattan Singh's case is not a condition precedent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in interfering with the finding of fact on an erroneous basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 33 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1