Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bishan Lal Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 12 January, 1978
The order of termination came to be passed after the report of the District Judge was considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, the appellant filed a civil suit before the learned Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigadh. In the said suit the same contentions were raised as in the present case viz, that the order of terminating was in the nature of punishment. The High Court after considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court found on the facts of the case that the Government never intended to punish the appellant and although allegations were of serious nature (as mentioned herein above) were there in the facts of the case the High Court found that the order of termination was that of simple discharge. The matter was carried further by Bishan Lal to the Supreme Court. By judgment reported in Bishan Lal v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by observing as follows :
Section 17 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 235 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Maharashtra vs Veerappa R. Saboji And Anr on 6 September, 1979
(1) In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Soboji, , a similar Rule came to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. In that case the Supreme Court was required to consider Rule 4(2) dealing with method of recruitment of the Junior Branch, Class II and Clause (iv) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 reads as under:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968
This decisions have been discussed and followed by a three Judge Bench in State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadu, ."
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Sri C.S. Sharma on 1 May, 1967
Mr. Singhvi also drew our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, . Mr. Singhvi placed reliance on the said judgment of the Supreme Court to show that in the said judgment a similar position arose where the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules came to be construed by the Supreme Court. According to Mr. Singhvi, the said Rule was similar to Rule 55 of the said Old Rules of 1932 referred to hereinabove and also to the present Rules of 1979 as in the present case. Mr. Singhvi, accordingly, placed reliance in support of his case that where the Government intended to invoke the said Rule 55, it was clear that the Government intended to impose punishment and not a simple discharge. As mentioned hereinabove whether we take into account the said Rules of 1932 or the New Rules of 1979 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules schematic interpretation leads up to only one conclusion that where serious charges are levelled against the permanent employee the Government must hold an enquiry before terminating services of such a permanent employee. Similarly even if the Government intends to punish a probationer then an enquiry is required. But that does not mean that the Government cannot discharge a probationer if found unsuitable and therefore, it will depend upon the facts of each case as whether the action was punishment or not. These principles are well settled principles of law as laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court. The question is with regard to application of the said principles to the given set of facts which arise in each case.