Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.47 seconds)The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Through ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 3 August, 2007
AR for the management, however, argues to the contrary
and submits that the workman remained absent unauthorizedly from
his duties with the management w.e.f. 11.10.1999 and has not rejoined
his duties with the management despite the management having sent
notices to the workman for resumption of his duties with the
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.11 OF 46
management vide its letter dated 24.12.1999 Ex. WW1/M2 sent by
registered AD post dated 27.12.1999 Exts. WW1/M3 and WW1/M4
at the addresses of the workman on record with the management and
thus the workman has abandoned his services with the management. It
is further the submission of the AR for the management that the
management had never terminated the services of the workman on
25.10.1999, the date alleged and in fact has been always ready and
willing to keep the workman in service with the management as stated
by the management in its written statement to the instant statement of
claim wherein the management has stated that in fact the management
had not taken any action against the workman who is still remaining
absent and in case he still wants to work with the management he may
be directed to report for duty at the factory of the management situated
at 223, PhaseIV, Gurgaon giving a simple assurance in writing that he
will not remain absent unauthorizedly in future. It is further the
submission of the AR for the management that the workman is a
habitual absentee from his duties with the management and has
remained absent from his duties with the management on a number of
days while being in the employment of the management. It is further
the submission of the AR for the management that no rejoinder has
been filed by the workman to the written statement of the management
to his instant statement of claim, on record, wherein the management
has placed, on record its willingness to take the workman back on duty
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.12 OF 46
which goes to show that the workman is not having the requisite
intention to join duties with the management and accordingly, his
allegation that his services have been terminated on the part of the
management on the date alleged is not borne out from his conduct in
not taking up the offer of the management to resume duties with the
management. It is further the submission of the AR for the
management that the workman has admitted in his cross examination
on behalf of the management as WW1 in workman evidence that he
had not applied anywhere for the job subsequent to his alleged
termination of service on the date alleged as also has admitted that his
family comprises of his wife and four children and that he is incurring
an expenditure of about Rupees four to five thousand per month on his
monthly expenses which it is not possible for him to meet if he is
unemployed and not gainfully employed as alleged by him and
accordingly, his allegation of being unemployed though it has not been
mentioned by him with effect from which date or with effect from the
date of the alleged termination of his services is not proved, on record.
It is further the submission of the AR for the management that in view
of the conduct of the workman he is not entitled to the relief as
claimed by him. It is further the submission of the AR for the
management that the affidavits by way of evidence of the workman
filed in workman evidence are not verified in accordance with law and
as such are not admissible in evidence. AR for the management has
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.13 OF 46
also filed written submissions as also relied upon citations 2003 LLR
5 Bombay High Court, Sonal Garments Vs. Trimbak Shanker
Karve; 2003 (4) L.L.N. 616 High Court of Bombay, Raju Sanker
Poojary Vs. Chembur Warehouse Company and another; 2006 LLR
713 Regional Manager, State Bank of India, RegionIII, Kanpur Vs.
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum
Labour Court, Kanpur and another; 2007 LLR 1164 Gujarat High
Court, Gopal Nandkishor Sharma Vs. Manager, Nanavati
Associates; 2008 LLR 87 Allahabad High Court, U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Gorakhpur and Others; 2008 LLR 332 Madhya Pradesh High
Court, Hemraj Vs. Director, Sericulture, Bhopal and Anr.;1956
Calcutta 496 (AIR V43 C 143 Sept.)
Bisakha Rani Ghose vs Satish Chandra Roy Singha And Ors. on 10 March, 1955
Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish
Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra
Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38
Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills
Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor;
AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and
Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another;
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46
AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India
and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range
Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR
201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai
Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969
Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish
Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra
Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38
Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills
Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor;
AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and
Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another;
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46
AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India
and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range
Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR
201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai
Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish
Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra
Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38
Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills
Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor;
AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and
Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another;
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46
AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India
and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range
Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR
201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai
Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish
Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra
Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38
Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills
Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor;
AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and
Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another;
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46
AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India
and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range
Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR
201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai
Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005
Bisakha Rani Ghose Vs. Satish
Chandra Roy Singha and Others; (33) 1952 Calcutta 255 Chandra
Kundu Vs. State of Bengal and Others; AIR 1964 Bombay 38
Messers Shamsunder Rajkumar Vs. Messers Bharat Oil Mills
Nagpur; AIR 1914 Allahabad 197 Mangal and Others Vs. Emperor;
AIR 1962 Patna 101 Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar and
Others; AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 406 Bhupinder Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and Others; AIR 1967, Goa Daman and Diu 142
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another;
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.14 OF 46
AIR 1970 Supreme Court 652 A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India
and another; 2002 (2) L.L.N. 391 Supreme Court of India, Range
Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani; (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
106 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer and 2006 (108) FLR
201, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Udai
Narain Pandey, in support of his submissions.
M/S Hindustan Associates Engineerpvt. ... vs Sh. K.K.Aggarwal & Ors. on 2 February, 2011
The law regarding the concept of 'abandonment' has been dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide citation AIR 1979 SC
582; G.T. LAD and others, Appellants vs. M/s Chemical and Fibres
of India Ltd., Respondent wherein it has been held that abandonment
being not a temporary absence but being a total and complete giving
up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same
(emphasis supplied). Admittedly, the said inference i.e. of the workman
having allegedly abandoned his employment with the
management/employer on the part of the employer/management could
not but have been arrived at without holding an enquiry in this regard
and affording an opportunity to the alleged delinquent
employee/workman of being heard as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India vide citation MANU/SC/0529/1993 (JT 1993
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.36 OF 46
(3) SC 617) D.K. Yadav Appellant vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
Respondent as also by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide citations
2010 (117) DRJ 433 Anil Chuttani, Appellant vs. The Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation, Respondent; 2010 LLR 312 Hindustan
Associates Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. K.K. Aggarwal;
MANU/DE/0541/2005 Shakuntla's Export House (P) Ltd. vs.
Secretary (Labour); Mount Carmel School vs. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court NoX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and Others, vide
which it has been held that abandonment is also facet of misconduct
(emphasis supplied) which in order to be proved/actionable requires an
enquiry to be held, which factum I find from the record has neither
even been averred by the management in the instant proceedings nor
proved in the same, on record.
Shakuntala'S Export House (P) Ltd. vs Secretary (Labour) And Ors. on 15 April, 2005
The law regarding the concept of 'abandonment' has been dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide citation AIR 1979 SC
582; G.T. LAD and others, Appellants vs. M/s Chemical and Fibres
of India Ltd., Respondent wherein it has been held that abandonment
being not a temporary absence but being a total and complete giving
up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same
(emphasis supplied). Admittedly, the said inference i.e. of the workman
having allegedly abandoned his employment with the
management/employer on the part of the employer/management could
not but have been arrived at without holding an enquiry in this regard
and affording an opportunity to the alleged delinquent
employee/workman of being heard as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India vide citation MANU/SC/0529/1993 (JT 1993
I.D No.319/06 PAGE NO.36 OF 46
(3) SC 617) D.K. Yadav Appellant vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
Respondent as also by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide citations
2010 (117) DRJ 433 Anil Chuttani, Appellant vs. The Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation, Respondent; 2010 LLR 312 Hindustan
Associates Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. K.K. Aggarwal;
MANU/DE/0541/2005 Shakuntla's Export House (P) Ltd. vs.
Secretary (Labour); Mount Carmel School vs. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court NoX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and Others, vide
which it has been held that abandonment is also facet of misconduct
(emphasis supplied) which in order to be proved/actionable requires an
enquiry to be held, which factum I find from the record has neither
even been averred by the management in the instant proceedings nor
proved in the same, on record.