Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
St. Marys Education Society vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava on 24 August, 2022
Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad
Bhargava5 and Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma,6
to submit that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked for enforcing a
contract of personal service.
State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008
31. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of
Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla,7 to submit that unauthorised absence is a serious
service matter and that the employer is entitled to take action where an
employee does not report for duty and offers no satisfactory explanation. It
is contended that the Petitioner, having ignored repeated communications,
cannot complain of violation of natural justice.
National Hydroelectric Power ... vs 1.Shri Bhagwan on 11 September, 2001
41. Furthermore, Rule 4C of the CDA Rules makes it clear that the whole
time of an employee is at the disposal of the employer and that he is required
8
National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574.
D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993
45. The Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.10 held
that a provision for automatic termination on account of absence cannot be
applied in a manner that excludes natural justice. Termination of service
entails civil consequences and must be preceded by a fair opportunity of
hearing. Article 14 mandates that the procedure adopted be just, fair, and
reasonable, and not arbitrary.
Uptron India Limited vs Shammi Bhan & Anr on 6 February, 1998
This principle was reaffirmed in Uptron India
Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan,11 where the Court read natural justice into a clause
providing for automatic termination of service.
Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012
47. The Petitioner has correctly relied on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India,12 and this Court in
Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. GNCTD,13 to contend that the question whether
absence constitutes failure of devotion to duty or misconduct necessarily
requires an inquiry into whether the absence was wilful, or attributable to
9
Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 253.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors on 6 September, 2013
47. The Petitioner has correctly relied on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India,12 and this Court in
Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. GNCTD,13 to contend that the question whether
absence constitutes failure of devotion to duty or misconduct necessarily
requires an inquiry into whether the absence was wilful, or attributable to
9
Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 253.