Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M. Chandrasekhar Reddy & Ors on 25 January, 2005
Counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions primarily
on these lines and to buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed
by the counsel for the petitioner on Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001 (2) SCC 574, U.P.State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Mohan Lal Gupta and others, 2000 (9) SCC
521, Regional Manager, RSRTC vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10
SCC 330 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. M. Chandrasekhar
Reddy and others, 2005 (1) Judicial Reports (Supreme Court) 168. He,
seeking support from the above judgments, submits that the power
exercised under Section 11-A of the Act by the Labour Court was beyond
jurisdiction and unjustified. The award impugned, therefore, deserves to be
set aside.
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs B.S. Hullikatti on 22 January, 2001
An employee, who
is dishonest with a small amount cannot be trusted with large amounts. In
cases of dishonesty, fraud or mis-appropriation of funds, exercise of
powers under Section 11-A of the Act by the Labour Court in substituting
the punishment and reinstating an employee would not be justified. The
Labour Court cannot force upon an employer a dishonest employee, on
which the employer has lost faith and confidence. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
(supra), U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and Regional
Manager, RSRTC (supra), while dealing with the cases of Conductors, had
clearly held that the Labour Court should not interfere with the order of
punishment on misplaced sympathy or compassion specially in those
cases, where the employer loses its confidence viz-a-viz the employee.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
General Manager, E.I.D. Parry (India) ... vs Presiding Officer, 2Nd Addl. Labour ... on 2 May, 1991
On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 supports the
award passed in favour of the workman on the ground that the amount,
which is attributed to have been defrauded by the workman, is merely Rs.
30/-. The Labour Court has rightly, while exercising its powers under
Section 11-A of the Act, come to the conclusion that the order of
termination is unwarranted in the present case as the mis-conduct proved
CWP NO. 18976 of 1996 6
against the workman is not that grave, which would call for termination
from service. He submits that discretionary power provided under the
Statute has been duly exercised by the Labour Court while taking into
consideration the length of service, which was 19 years at the time of his
termination and further the hardship, which he would face at that stage, has
been taken note of by the Labour Court while passing the substituted
punishment. He submits that in the given facts and circumstances of the
case, the exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Act by the Labour
Court is fully justified and does not call for interference by this Court. He
has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The Pepsu Road
Transport Corporation, Patiala through its General Manager vs. The
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another, 2000 (3) RSJ 554
and State of Punjab vs. Dhanna Singh and another, 2001 (3) SLR 433,
wherein this Court had taken a lenient view in the matter and has refrained
to interfere in the award passed by the Labour Court.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Mohan Lal Gupta And Ors. on 4 April, 2000
An employee, who
is dishonest with a small amount cannot be trusted with large amounts. In
cases of dishonesty, fraud or mis-appropriation of funds, exercise of
powers under Section 11-A of the Act by the Labour Court in substituting
the punishment and reinstating an employee would not be justified. The
Labour Court cannot force upon an employer a dishonest employee, on
which the employer has lost faith and confidence. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
(supra), U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and Regional
Manager, RSRTC (supra), while dealing with the cases of Conductors, had
clearly held that the Labour Court should not interfere with the order of
punishment on misplaced sympathy or compassion specially in those
cases, where the employer loses its confidence viz-a-viz the employee.
1