Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 11 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
In B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of
India and Ors. (1995 (6) SCC 749) the scope
of judicial review was indicated by stating
that review by the Court is of decision making
process and where the findings of the
disciplinary authority are based on some
evidence, the Court or the Tribunal cannot re
appreciate the evidence and substitute its own
finding.
R.S. Saini vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 September, 1999
19. As observed in R.S. Saini Vs. State
: 21 : (RC)
of Punjab and Ors. (1999 (8) SCC 90) in
paragraphs 16 and 17 the scope of
interference is rather limited and has to be
exercised within the circumscribed limits. It
was noted as follows:
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
In this regard, I am
fortified by an authority reported as
Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and
Rubber Company of India Ltd. Vs. The
Management AIR 1973 SC 1227, wherein
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in
paragraph 32 (3) as under :
"When a proper enquiry has been held by an
employer, and the finding of misconduct is
plausible conclusion flowing from the
evidence adduced at the said enquiry, the
tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment
over the decision of the employer as an
: 23 : (RC)
appellate body. The interference with the
decision of the employer will be justified
only when the findings arrived at in the
enquiry are perverse or the management is
guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice
or mala fide"
Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975
10. It is submitted by Ld. AR for workman that
workman was absent for a short period, that is, about fifteen days
and for that also there were valid reasons. The workman was sick
and he had duly conveyed the fact of his sickness to the
management. It is submitted that a lenient view may kindly be
taken and some other punishment, in place of dismissal, may be
awarded. My attention has been invited to an authority reported
as Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and
others AIR 1976 SC 98.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs R. Dhandapani on 25 November, 2005
In Life Insurance Corporation (Supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court dealt with powers of court under section 11A of
the Act and observed in paragraphs 8 to 10 as under:
"8. It is not necessary to go into in
detail regarding the power exercisable under
Section 11A of the Act. The power under
said Section 11A has to be exercised
judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or the
Labour Court, as the case may be, is expected
to interfere with the decision of a
management under Section 11A of the Act
only when it is satisfied that punishment
imposed by the management is wholly and
: 27 : (RC)
shockingly disproportionate to the degree of
guilt of the workman concerned. To support
its conclusion the Industrial Tribunal or the
Labour Court, as the case may be, has to give
reasons in support of its decision. The power
has to be exercised judiciously and mere use
of the words 'disproportionate' or 'grossly
disproportionate' by itself will not be
sufficient.
Sher Bahadur vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 August, 2002
In this regard, it is instructive to quote a
: 20 : (RC)
recent authority reported as Sher Bahadur
Vs. Union of India and others (2002) 7
SCC 142, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed in paragraph 7 as under :
"It may be observed that the expression
"sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence
of some evidence which links the charged
officer with the misconduct alleged against
him. Evidence, however voluminous it may
be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense
nor establishes any nexus between the alleged
misconduct and the charged officer, is no
evidence in the
law ...................................................................
........................................................................"