Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs R. Dhandapani on 25 November, 2005
The learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of N.R.C. Ltd. (supra) has also, in similar case of absenteeism, held that the discretion which is to be exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A must be exercised on considerations germane to the jurisdiction of the Court. The discretion must be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In my view, the Company has demonstrated that the absenteeism on the part of the workman was prolonged and that he had been warned on two occasions i.e. in the years 1982 and 1983. In 1984 and 1985, he was suspended by way of punishment for the same act of misconduct. In my view, therefore, the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement to the workman with continuity of service, must be set aside.
Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005
In the case of Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. the Supreme Court has again held that the practice of awarding back wages merely because a workman has been reinstated must be changed. The Supreme Court has held that the Labour Court should not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employer unless an appropriate case is made out. In this case, I find that the Labour Court has unnecessarily interfered with the punishment imposed by the Company. This was a case of chronic absenteeism and there was no reason to condone the behaviour of the workman when he chose to remain absent time and again.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sardar Singh on 12 August, 2004
5. The learned Counsel for the Company has relied on several judgments including, (L.I.C. of India v. R. Dhandapani) reported in 2006(1) C.L.R. 32 (Supreme Court); (Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka) ; (NRC Limited v. NRC Employees' Union) reported in 2001(111) C.L.R. 286 (Bom.H.C); and (Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh) . He submits that absenteeism has not been condoned by the Supreme Court as well as this Court and, therefore, no leniency need be shown to the workman in this case.
1