Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 13B in The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare ... vs The Presiding Officer, Additional I.T. on 25 February, 1992
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5402
WP No. 207355 of 2017 &
Connected Matters
KSRTC. The NEKRTC and NWKRTC having been
formed out of KSRTC and the employees of
KSRTC having been transferred to NEKRTC and
NWKRTC and they having adopted the KSRTC
(C & D) Regulations 1971, those Regulations
being one and the same for KSRTC, NEKRTC
and NWKRTC, the decision on Muniswamy's
case would be equally applicable to NEKRTC
and NWKRTC, and the declaration made therein
would also apply to them. Thus, the main
submission and the sub submission made in
this regard are liable to be rejected.
20.5. Therefore, I answer Point No.1 by holding that
despite the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court in Pandavapura's case, in view of a
declaration made by a Division Bench of this
Court in Muniswamy Gowda's case, it would
be the KSRTC Servants (Conduct and
Discipline) Regulations 1971, which will apply to
Section 2 in The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Muniswamy Gowda H. vs Management Of Ksrtc And Another on 10 January, 1997
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5402
WP No. 207355 of 2017 &
Connected Matters
KSRTC. The NEKRTC and NWKRTC having been
formed out of KSRTC and the employees of
KSRTC having been transferred to NEKRTC and
NWKRTC and they having adopted the KSRTC
(C & D) Regulations 1971, those Regulations
being one and the same for KSRTC, NEKRTC
and NWKRTC, the decision on Muniswamy's
case would be equally applicable to NEKRTC
and NWKRTC, and the declaration made therein
would also apply to them. Thus, the main
submission and the sub submission made in
this regard are liable to be rejected.
20.5. Therefore, I answer Point No.1 by holding that
despite the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court in Pandavapura's case, in view of a
declaration made by a Division Bench of this
Court in Muniswamy Gowda's case, it would
be the KSRTC Servants (Conduct and
Discipline) Regulations 1971, which will apply to
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5402
WP No. 207355 of 2017 &
Connected Matters
obtained from the Court seized of the industrial
dispute. Apart from discharge or dismissal, if
any other punishment is levied/imposed, then
no such permission is required to be obtained.
In the present batch of matters, it is not in all
of them that the workman has been dismissed
from service. The workmen have been
dismissed from service only in WP
No.200010/2014 and WP No.203006/2014.
Thus, it is only in those cases that such
permission was required to be obtained and
compliance with the proviso to Clause-B of sub-
section (2) of Section 33 of I.D.Act is required
to be made. Thus, as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas
Bank Ltd's case, the sanction not having been
obtained, dismissal would be non-est and is
required to be set aside.