Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs Management Of Pan American World ... on 3 December, 1986
In this connection Mr. Cama has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. The Management of M/s Pan American World Airway Inc. and others reported in (1987) Vol. I L.L.J. page 107. In that matter, the Management undertook a preliminary inquiry as the Management suspected Lakshman being involved in a smuggling activity. On facts, the Supreme Court found that termination of services of Lakshman came to be made by the employer as being founded upon stigma and in the circumstances if a domestic inquiry has not preceded the prejudicial order then the order could be justified even in the course of adjudication before the appropriate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no controversy with regard to the legal position. On facts of the present case, the Industrial Tribunal gave the above opportunity to the petitioner - Company to lead evidence and prove that the Management was justified in terminating the services of respondent No. 1 by way of simple discharge. The question is only as to whether the Company has succeeded in proving before the Industrial Tribunal the justification for discharging the workman by way of simple discharge. As stated hereinabove, the order of simple discharge by itself does not prove the mala fides. As stated hereinabove, mala fides, unfair labour practice, violation of the rules of natural justice and such other grounds which vitiate the order of simple discharge stands outside the impugned order. Mala fides or unfair labour practice cannot be inferred merely from the fact that the employer has chosen an easier option by way of discharge simpliciter. However, when the employee pleads colourable exercise of power by the employer or if the employee pleads violation of the rules of natural justice then the Court is required to ascertain as to whether the Company acted in a bona fide manner.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
In the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. G.S.T. Mazdoor Sabha, reported in 1980 Vol. I, L.L.J. at page 137, the Supreme Court laid down that if the basis or the foundation for the order of termination is rooted in misconduct then a domestic inquiry is warranted but in cases where a suspicion of the employer is well founded and he may not like to investigate or take the risk of continuing a dubious servant then such a case will not fall within the category of dismissal but it will come within the category of termination simpliciter. Ultimately, it will depend upon the substance of the matter.
Dinkar Bali Palekar vs Bharat Forge Ltd. & Ors. on 22 December, 1995
In the case of Dinkar Bali Palekar v. Bharat Forge Ltd, & ors., reported in (1996)I C.L.R. page 649, the entire law has been once again discussed by the learned Single Judge (B.N. Srikrishna, J.). In the above judgment, it has been laid down that where an employer has two options, referred to hereinabove, the order of simple discharge does not become mala fide if such a power is otherwise properly exercised. In other words, the basic test is : whether the employer has exercised his authority to opt for one of the two options in a proper manner.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Therapeutics Chemicals Research ... vs Justice R.D. Tulpule, Presiding ... on 24 November, 1987
In the present matter, the short point is whether the Reference fell within the jurisdiction of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal whereas in the case of I.D. Shahu (supra), the point at issue was applicability of the provisions of the Mathadi Act vis-a-vis the provisions of the Dock Workers Act, 1948 and in the circumstances, the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of I.D. Shahu (supra) has no application to the facts in hand.