Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993
45. Learned counsel for the Respondent has further relied upon Raxa
Security Services Limited v. Sagar Kumar Mandal in (W.P.(C)
8942/2023) and D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259,
to contend that termination of service, having serious civil consequences
for livelihood, must conform to standards of fairness and proportionality.
The principle is unexceptionable; however, the reliance is misplaced. Both
decisions concerned termination without adherence to due process,
particularly in cases of deemed abandonment without a proper enquiry. In
the present case, a Charge-Sheet was issued, a domestic enquiry was
conducted, the respondent participated and admitted the charge, and the
enquiry has been upheld as fair and proper. The finding of misconduct
stands concluded and is not under challenge on grounds of procedural
infirmity. Once procedural fairness stands satisfied, Article 21 cannot be
invoked to dilute the consequences of proved misconduct. The only issue
before this Court is whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate
within the meaning of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. & Another vs Their Workmen(And Connected Appeals) on 15 October, 1957
In the case of Indian Iron Steel Company Vs. Their Workmen,
AIR 1958 SC 130, it was held:
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs R. Dhandapani on 25 November, 2005
In LIC of India v. R. Dhandapani [(2006) 13 SCC 613 :
Bharat Bhushan vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 25 October, 2010
In support of its finding that habitual unauthorized absence reflects
lack of devotion to duty and warrants disciplinary action, the Labour Court
placed reliance upon Bharat Bhushan v. Delhi Transport Corporation
(W.P.(C) No. 1771/2008), decided on 25th October, 2010, wherein it was
held as follows:
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd vs Uttam Manohar Nakate on 18 January, 2005
In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Bharat Forge case and L&T Komatsu case, this Court
is unable to agree with the Impugned Award, which is
accordingly, set aside. The Enquiry Report of the
Petitioner/DTC is affirmed.