Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)

Clemend V. Fernandez vs Giovanola Binny Co. Ltd. on 1 April, 1971

18. On the principles laid down in the Supreme Court cases referred to above and the Full Bench decision in Fernatndez v. Giovanola, Binny Co. Ltd. (1971) K.L.T, 471, I have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal has correctly found that the orders of termination of the petitioner's service is illegal. Even on the basis of Mr. Justice Raman Nayar's decision in a case of discharge simpliciter for misconduct the employer has to show and the Industrial Tribunal has to consider and decide whether there was reasonable cause irrespective of whether or not that cause amounts to misconduct. The employer could defend his action by leading evidence before the Tribunal to show that there was in fact misconduct and, therefore, the action taken was bona fide and was not a colourable exercise of the power under the Rule. In this case the Tribunal has held that the management's case that he is incompetent, inefficient and that he is a person who is not fit to repose any confidence has not been proved. Nothing has been placed before me to show that in coming to this conclusion the Tribunal has committed any error as such.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - K K Mathew - Full Document

The Chartered Bank, Bombay vs The Chartered Bank Employees' Union on 4 April, 1960

The matter then came up before this Court also in the Chartered Bank v. Chartered Bank Employees' Union 1960-II L.L.J. 822 and U.B. Dutt & Co. v. Workers of V.B. Dutt & Co. 1962-I L.L.J. 374, wherein the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal was approved and it was held that even in a case like the present the requirement of bona fides was essential and if the termination of service was a colourable exercise of the power or as a result of victimization or unfair labour practice the Industrial Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to intervene and set aside such a case is not conclusive and the Tribunal can go behind the order to find the reasons which led to the order and then consider for itself whether the termination was a colourable exercise of the power or was a result of victimization or unfair labour practice. If it came to the conclusion that the termination was a colourable exercise of the power or was a result of victimization or unfair labour practice it would have the jurisdiction to intervene and set aside such termination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 54 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1