Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Pyare Lal Sharma vs Managing Director, Jammu & ... on 19 July, 1989
7. However, the CAT, by placing reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director, Jammu and Kashmir Industries Ltd., Srinagar [(1989) 3 SCC 448] and 1996 (2) SLR 17, held that since the first respondent had put in 20 years of service and that his absence was consequent on the illness of his wife, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and, therefore, it directed the reinstatement. However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to impose a minor penalty. It also held that the period of absence should be adjusted against his leave entitlement and that he will not be given the benefit of backwages. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.
Union Of India vs Sardar Bahadur on 29 October, 1971
8. Mr. Vellaisamy, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618] and submitted that the CAT cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employer. He also submitted that the reasons given by the CAT to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Railways was not proper. In fact, even before the period covered by the charge-memo, the firs respondent was absent and he further absented himself subsequent to the period covered by the charge-memo. He further submitted that it is not a case of a single instance of absence but the first respondent had absented himself in bits and pieces spread over a whole year thereby preventing the Department from even making alternative arrangement. He also never furnished any proof of illness of his wife in the enquiry and nothing prevented him from applying for leave. He further submitted that his habitual absence calls for a deterrent punishment.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs R. Dhandapani on 25 November, 2005
11. The judgments in Burn & Co. Ltd. Case and LIC of India case (cited supra) recently came to be quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar [(2008) 1 SCC 224].
State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005
12. Likewise, the judgment in Sukhwinder Singh's case (cited supra) came to be quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 9 SCC 582].
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
In this context, a reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749]. He also submitted that the first respondent was working in a sensitive Department, viz., Electrical Rolling Stock Branch where the locos were periodically overhauled and maintained and his frequent absence had caused considerable dislocation in work.
Harjit Singh & Anr vs The State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 February, 2007
12. Likewise, the judgment in Sukhwinder Singh's case (cited supra) came to be quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 9 SCC 582].
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
M/S. L&T Komatsu Ltd vs N. Udayakumar on 3 December, 2007
11. The judgments in Burn & Co. Ltd. Case and LIC of India case (cited supra) recently came to be quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar [(2008) 1 SCC 224].
1