Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Cholan Roadways Limited vs G. Thirugnanasambandam on 17 December, 2004
In the circumstances, I am of the view that the interference of this Court under Article 226 is warranted in order to correct a clear transgression by the Tribunal of the limits of its own jurisdiction under the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
In Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, (2002) 1 CLR 789, the Supreme Court has held that the act of passing an order of dismissal or removal, the payment of one month's wages and the filing of an application should be treated as part of one transaction. A failure to do so would render the dismissal or removal non-est.
Bennett Coleman & Co. (P) Ltd vs Punya Priya Das Gupta on 2 April, 1969
In Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Punya Priya Das Gupta, 1969 (II) LLJ 554, the Supreme Court held that a car allowance and the benefit of a free telephone and newspaper were allowances which would be included in the concept of wages under Section 2(rr) because these were in that case payable whether or not the employee had used the facility in or in connection with his work.
Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs Union Of India And Others on 5 November, 1973
On the other hand, in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India, 1974 (I) LLJ 164, it was held that Travelling Allowance or Running allowance would be paid to the employee only if he had travelled or run and not otherwise and was, therefore, not an allowance within the meaning of Section 2(rr).
Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs Industrial Tribunal, ... on 15 March, 1990
These decisions were considered in a subsequent decision of three Learned Judges in Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bangalore v. Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka, 1990 (II) LLJ 32, where the Supreme Court held that an allowance which from the terms of employment flows as not contingent on actual working is part of wages for the purposes of Section 33(2)(b), but an allowance which is earned only by active serving is not an allowance which will form part of wages. In Bharat Electronics the Supreme Court held that the workman had to earn the night shift allowance by actually working in the night shift and his claim to that allowance was contingent upon his reporting to duty and being put to that shift. The night shift allowance did not automatically form part of wages and it was held that the Tribunal fell into an error in declining to grant its approval under Section 33(2)(b) for the reason that the aforesaid allowance had not been determined in computing the wages of one month.
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs K.S. Gandhi And Ors on 12 March, 1991
12. Insofar as the merits of the present case are concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that there was a breach, of the principles of natural justice on the ground that (i) the confessional statement was not proved and (ii) the panchanama was not proved in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding of perversity is principally premised on the basis that no one had seen the chargesheeted workman while bringing or carrying gold when he alighted from the Aircraft. While considering the evidence in the present case, the Tribunal first and foremost, ought to have borne in mind that its jurisdiction in an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) was to determine whether a prima facie case has been made out as regards the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to a prima facie evaluation since upon the grant of its permission or approval, the order of discharge or dismissal is subject to challenge in the course of an adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second important circumstance which the Tribunal ought to have borne in mind is that in a disciplinary enquiry the strict rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are not attracted. The standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but proof on a to preponderance of probabilities. Undoubtedly, the inferences which are drawn by the Enquiry Officer cannot be based on conjecture or surmise, but it is equally necessary to bear in mind as the Supreme Court held in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716, that in grave cases like forgery, fraud, conspiracy and misappropriation, direct evidence would seldom be available.