Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (2.11 seconds)The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 10 in The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Raj. State Road Transport Corp., & Anr vs Satya Prakash & Anr on 22 November, 2013
5. It was argued that the guidelines laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan SRTC's case supra,
that wherever there seems violation, the workman has two
choices either to bring to the notice of the Industrial
Tribunal about the non-compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of
the Act through an application or can challenge the order
5
of dismissal invoking Section 10(4-A) or Section 10(1)(c) or
Section 11 of the Act. Hence, when the respondent has
challenged the case on merit, the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the arguments of the respondent-
workman regarding the non-compliance of Section 33(2)(b)
of the Act. It was submitted that the workman after
suffering an order on merits cannot take recourse to
violation of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.
Section 7 in The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Management Of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. vs S.Balakrishnan on 10 February, 2016
In such
circumstances, the High Court interfering with
the punishment imposed held, is contrary to the
view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited
(supra), the situation herein is entirely different,
Corporation has challenged the award of the
Labour Court. In the said proceedings, keeping
in view of the fact that the approval required
under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act had not been
taken due to mistaken notion of the legal
position by the officers and considering the
status of the Corporation being a public sector,
in the interest of the public at large, the order of
the Labour Court has been modified restricting
the backwages to 50%. In the circumstances,
the judgments referred to by the learned counsel
for the Corporation is not applicable to the facts
of the present case. The evidence of MW1 does
not prove the charges levelled against the
respondent as viewed by the Tribunal.
Section 4 in Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Shivasharanappa S/O Basanna Rawathgol on 14 October, 2015
25. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Venkat as well as Rupasingh R. Chavan supra,
held that the order of dismissal of the workman
contravening Section 33 of the Act would render the
dismissal order inoperative considering and distinguishing
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajasthan SRTC as well as Shivasharanappa supra.