Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.83 seconds)

Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

The learned counsel referred to Paragraphs 25 & 26 of the K.V.Jankiraman (supra) case. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases where the employee although is willing to work is kept away from work by authorities for no fault of his. In paragraph 26, the Apex Court talks of disciplinary/ criminal cases where the employee gets exonerated giving benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts of employee and subsequently it postulated guidelines for the administrative authorities to decide the cases taking into all facts and circumstances of the disciplinary/criminal prosecution. Where the authorities decide to deny arrears, they should record reasons for doing so.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1332 - P B Sawant - Full Document

J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007

vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 579 - Full Document
1   2 Next