Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.47 seconds)O.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 September, 1987
41. Also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Gupta
Vs. Union of India and others reported as AIR 1987 SC 2257
held that where there is no progress in the departmental
proceedings and the suspension continues for years without
justifiable cause, such suspension becomes arbitrary and illegal
and Prolonged suspension without cause is not only
POIT -952-16 Page No. 22/28
administrative abuse but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
Workmen Of M/S Dharampal ... vs M/S. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) on 16 March, 1965
"The definition of the Industrial dispute in Section
2(k) of the I.D. Act shows that an "Industrial
disputes means any dispute or difference between
an employer and employers or between employers
and workman, or between workmen and workmen,
which is connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of the employment or
with the condition of labour, of any person." The
definition has been the subject matter of several
decisions of this Court and the decision in
Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi)
V. Dharampal Premchand (saughandhi) AIR 1966
SC 182: 1965-I-LLJ-668, wherein it was held that
for the purposes of Section 2(k) it must be shown
POIT -952-16 Page No. 12/28
that (1) the dispute is connected with the
employment or non-employment of a workman.
(2) the dispute between a single workman and his
employer was sponsored or espoused by the Union
of workmen or by a number of workmen and
further held that:
B.R. Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India &-Ors on 26 September, 1989
Similarly, in a case law titled as B.R. Singh vs. Union of India
(1989) 4 SCC 710, it has been held that a dispute regarding
unreasonable service conditions, including suspension, falls
under Section 2(k) of the ID Act. Hence, the present dispute is an
industrial dispute under Section 2(k) and has been properly
espoused by the Union.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 22 August, 2000
In the Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P.
(2000) 7 SCC 90, it has been held that Prolonged suspension
without progress in the inquiry proceedings is not justified,
especially when it causes hardship to the employee.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10A in The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
1