Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.47 seconds)
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi vs Labour Court, Delhi And Another on 7 May, 1984 cites

The Buckingham And Carnatic Co. Ltd vs Venkatiah And Anr on 2 August, 1963

It has been observed that the certified Standing Orders represent the relevant terms and conditions of service in a statutory form and they are binding on the parties at least as much, if not more, as private contracts embodying similar terms and conditions of service; and that if an employee is absent for eight consecutive days without leave, he is deemed to have terminated his contract of service and thus relinquished or abandoned his employment. There was also another clause treating absence without leave as misconduct. It was held that the fact that the same conduct is dealt with in two different Standing Orders cannot affect the applicability of the Standing Orders relating to absence without leave. The workman in that case had gone on leave for six days from 10th January, 1957. He did not join duty after the expiry of leave but remained absent without leave and without sending any communication for extending his leave. On 11th March, 1957, he sent a letter to the management that after reaching his village he suffered from fever and dysentery. The Supreme Court held that the workman was deemed to have left the company's services as he was absent for more than eight consecutive days.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 182 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

National Engineering Industries Ltd vs Hanuman on 25 July, 1967

In National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Hanuman, , it has been observed that where a Standing Order provided that a workman would lose his lien on his appointment if he does not join duty within eight days of the expiry of his leave, it obviously means that his services are automatically terminated when the contingency happens, and that the workman who has lost his lien cannot continue in service thereafter. It has been further observed that there is no difference between saying that "the workman's lien would stand terminated" and that "the workman would lose his appointment". In that case the workman took leave from 3rd to 9th April, 1965. He did not join on 10th April, 1965, but reported for duty on 20th April, 1965, and he was not allowed to join on the ground that his services stood terminated. There was another Standing Order to treat absence without permission as a major misconduct and it was held that the management was free to resort to any one of the provisions unless it was shown that resort to one particular provision was mala fide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 43 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Binny Ltd vs Their Workmen on 15 February, 1972

15. Learned counsel for the management submits that a prayer for adjournment was made on 4th June, 1976, but it was refused. He further submits that the Labour court wrongly observed in its award that the arguments were heard. He says that, in fact, no opportunity to argue the case was given to the representative of the management. He also submits in the alternative that reinstatement ought not to have been granted in the circumstances as the workman initially sought leave on the ground that he was to search for a suitable match for his daughter and after going out a Delhi he fell ill, and in his application for leave from 9th to 11th May, 1974, he applied for extension of leave on account of his illness but in his letter dated 21st May, 1974, he stated that he was arrested on 8th May, 1974. The learned counsel submits that, under the circumstances, the management lost confidence in the workman and, therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement. He refers to Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen, , wherein it has been observed that the employer loses confidence in the workman when the latter avails of special leave without wages on false representation. As I am of the view that there was automatic loss of lien on the appointment it is not necessary to decide the other points raised by the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 60 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Indian Tube Company Ltd. vs Pratap Mishra on 27 November, 1968

16. Learned counsel for the workman respondent has referred to Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. Pratap Mishra, [1970 - I L.L.J. 322], wherein it has been observed that discharge of an employee without any enquiry and without giving one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of notice was bad in law. The facts of that case are not applicable to the instant case. As already observed, the present case is governed by clause 11(g) and the workman automatically lost his lien as he was absent for more than 12 days without any intimation after expiry of leave.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1