Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
K.Desikamani (Deceased) vs The Presiding Officer on 8 June, 2010 cites

Jeeva Transport Corpn. Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal And Anr. on 27 August, 1992

In this context, reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd., v. Industrial Tribunal and another reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 350. In that case, this Court held that Conductor of the bus who was present at the spot of the accident was not examined and even the person who gave the first information to the police was also not examined and dismissed the petition filed by the Corporation. Therefore, placing reliance upon the officer of the Corporation, who was not an eye witness who drew inference from the tyremark cannot be a sufficient evidence to dismiss the workman.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh on 11 January, 1972

In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.'s case (cited supra), though the Supreme Court has held that the Court must go by the materials available on record. But that is not an authority, to hold in such circumstances, there need not be legal evidence. The Labour Court may be right in stating that it cannot rely upon Ex.W1 , the judgment of the Criminal Court regarding the subsequent acquittal, but at the same time, it is not as if every statement of an officer of the Corporation has to be believed only on the principle of 'res ipsa loquitor'. If material evidence which are not proved was acted as a substantive evidence, the Court can still reject such evidence and decide independently whether the charges have been proved or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 338 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

A. John Peter vs The General Manager, Tamilnadu ... on 21 March, 2003

12. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench in A.Mariasundararaj v. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd in W.A.No.2238 of 2000 dated 03.10.2007, wherein in paragraph 13, this Court gave several directions to the manner in which the accident cases are to be handled by a State Transport Corporation. In Paragraph 13(ii), it was stated that the statement of the Driver as well as the Conductor in their own handwriting as to the manner in which the accident had taken place with necessary details should be recorded. In paragraph 13.3, it was stated that they should also record the statement of passengers with their own handwriting and the department must also collect independent materials. In the present case, no such enquiry was made. Even though the directions issued therein may not directly apply to the case on hand, but the warning given by the Division Bench in respect of the method and mode of conducting an enquiry in case of an accident should have been kept in mind by the Corporation.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - D Murugesan - Full Document
1