Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)
Sd. Fasiuddin vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc And Ors. on 16 March, 2006 cites

T.G. Veera Prasad And Tungabhadra ... vs Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies And Allied ... on 11 December, 1995

In support of his submission that if the Labour Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, then the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere and modify the punishment, imposed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority and Labour Court, and to prove that there are instances where the apex Court and this Court had interfered with punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority in cases cash and ticket irregularities, placed reliance on several decisions of the apex Court and of this Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana , G.T. Ltd v. Chemicals and Fibers India Ltd. , T. Ali Akbar v. Labour Court, Anantapur APLJ 1991 (1) 71 SNRC; R.S.RT.C. v. Shri Ram Yadav 1995 Lab.
Company Law Board Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

I.C. 2133, K.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.M. Patil 1996 Lab I.C. 109, T.B. Singh v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 1997 (1) An.WR 133 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhik Nath 2005 (2) SCJ 242. He thus prayed that impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated into service with full backwages.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Divisional Controller,Ksrtc (Nwkrtc) vs A.T. Mane on 27 September, 2004

In Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane , the Apex Court held that once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. On the question of quantum of punishment, the apex Court held as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 213 - Full Document

Jit Ram Shiv Kumar And Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 16 April, 1980

In support of his submission that if the Labour Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, then the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere and modify the punishment, imposed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority and Labour Court, and to prove that there are instances where the apex Court and this Court had interfered with punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority in cases cash and ticket irregularities, placed reliance on several decisions of the apex Court and of this Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana , G.T. Ltd v. Chemicals and Fibers India Ltd. , T. Ali Akbar v. Labour Court, Anantapur APLJ 1991 (1) 71 SNRC; R.S.RT.C. v. Shri Ram Yadav 1995 Lab.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 671 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

T. Ali Akbar vs The Labour Court And Anr. on 16 April, 1991

In support of his submission that if the Labour Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, then the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere and modify the punishment, imposed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority and Labour Court, and to prove that there are instances where the apex Court and this Court had interfered with punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority in cases cash and ticket irregularities, placed reliance on several decisions of the apex Court and of this Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana , G.T. Ltd v. Chemicals and Fibers India Ltd. , T. Ali Akbar v. Labour Court, Anantapur APLJ 1991 (1) 71 SNRC; R.S.RT.C. v. Shri Ram Yadav 1995 Lab.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1