Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.57 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 26 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs R. K. Jain & Ors on 17 September, 1971
In state Bank of India vs. R.K. Jain &
ors. (1972) 1 SCR 755 and in Delhi cloth & General mills
company Ltd. vs. Ludh Budh Singh ,(1972) 1 Labour Law
journal 180 SC it was again laid down that where an
employer failed to make an enquiry before dismissing a
workman it would be open to him to produce all relevant
evidence before the Tribunal to show that the action was
justified.
Cooper Engineering Limited vs Shri P. P. Mundhe on 20 August, 1975
15. This decision has since been followed by this court in
a number of cases including The East India Hotels vs. Their
Workman & ors. AIR 1974 SC 696; The cooper Engineering Ltd.
vs. P.P. Mundhe AIR 1975 SC 1900; Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs.
T.B. Kadam.
Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975
15. This decision has since been followed by this court in
a number of cases including The East India Hotels vs. Their
Workman & ors. AIR 1974 SC 696; The cooper Engineering Ltd.
vs. P.P. Mundhe AIR 1975 SC 1900; Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs.
T.B. Kadam.
Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996
AIR 1975 SC 2025, and in a recent decision in
Bharat Forge co. Ltd. vs. A.B. Zodge & Anr.,(1996) 4 SCC
374, in which it was again reiterated that the parties have
the right to adduce evidence before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal can, on the basis of such evidence, come to its own
conclusion as to the guilt of the employee.
Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974
18. This court in Remington Rand of India Ltd. vs. Thiru R.
Jambulingam, (1975) 2 SCR 17, has already considered the
scope of the provisions of section 41 of the Act and held
that the jurisdiction of the commissioner (Deputy Labour
commissioner) who is the Appellate Authority under the Act
is of wider scope unlike that of the tribunal in an
application under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It was further held that the commissioner was competent to
re-hear the matter completely and come to its own conclusion
after re-appreciation of the evidence or entertaining
additional evidence, if necessary, in the interest of
justice.
M/S. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shri Jai Singh And Others on 20 September, 1961
In M/s Bharat Sugar mills Ltd. vs. Jai Singh, (1962) 3
SCR 684 the question of allowing an employer to adduce
evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action (after
the domestic enquiry was found to be defective) was
considered and it was hold that in such a situation it would
be appropriate to allow the partied to lead evidence so that
the Tribunal itself may be satisfied about the misconduct
imputes to the employee. The decision of the Labour
Appellate Tribunal itself may be satisfied about the
misconduct imputed to the employee.
Institute Of Chartered Accountants vs L.K. Ratna & Others on 21 October, 1986
26. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments that the
defect is not curable has placed reliance on the decision of
this court in Institute of chartered Accountants of India
vs. L.K Ratna & ors.,(1935) 4 SCC 537. It was no doubt. laid
down in this case that a post-decisional hearing cannot be
an effective substitute of pre-decisional hearing and that
if an opportunity of hearing is not given before a decision
is taken at the initial stage. it would result in serious
prejudice, inasmuch as if such an opportunity is provided at
the appellate stage, the person is deprived of his right of
appeal to another body. There may be cases where opportunity
of hearing is excluded by a particular service or statutory
rule.