Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.32 seconds)Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co.Ltd. & Anr on 4 May, 1979
24. Ordinarily, that would be the position.
However, it is appropriate at this stage to take
into account the observation made in case of
Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co.
Ltd. and another [AIR 1979 SC 1652], wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:
Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda And Others on 27 September, 1983
24.1 Reference can be had to the observations
by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shambhu Nath
Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda and others [AIR 1984 SC
280], wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed,
inter alia, that:
Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. & Another vs Their Workmen(And Connected Appeals) on 15 October, 1957
"It is now wellsettled by a number of decisions of
this Court that where an employer has failed to make an
enquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman it
is open to him to justify the action, before, the
Tribunal by leading all relevant evidence before it. In
such a case the employer would not have the benefit
which he had in cases where domestic inquires have been
held. The entire matter would be open before the
tribunal which will have jurisdiction not only to go
into the limited questions open to a tribunal where
domestic inquiry has been properly held (see Indian
Iron and Steel Co. v. Their Workmen (1958 SCR 667) :