Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)The Punjab National Bank, Ltd vs Its Workmen on 24 September, 1959
(3)[1968] 1 L.L.J 529
780
National Bank case(1) it was observed that the propriety of
reinstatement in a case of wrongful or illegal dismissal-is'
normally a question of fact and where the industrial
tribunal on a proper consideration of the relevant factors
refuses to pass such an order the Supreme Court would be
reluctant in the absence of any general or substantial
question of law to interfere under Art. 136 of the
Constitution. According to the counsel where reinstatement
has been ordered by the court or tribunal in an industrial
dispute arising out of dismissal of a workman this Court
should, in 'the absence of special circumstances, decline to
interfere with that order on special leave appeal. Support
from the case of M. L. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd. (2) is sought for
the contention that reinstatement is the normal rule when
dismissal is held to be wrongful and it is immaterial that
the employer has since employed other workmen.
Assam Oil Company vs Its Workmen on 4 April, 1960
"As exceptions to the general rule of
reinstatement, there have been cases where
reinstatement has not been considered as
either desirable or expedient. These were the
cases where there had been strained relations
between the employer and the employee, where
the post held by the aggrieved employee had
been one of trust and confidence or where,
though dismissal or discharge was
unsustainable owing to some infirmity in the
impugned order, the employee was, found to
have been guilty of an activity subversive of
or prejudicial to the interests of the
industry. These cases are to be found in
Assam Oil Co. Ltd. v. Workmen(1); Workmen of
Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v.-
Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd.(3);
Doomur Dulung Tea Estate v. Workmen(4)) and
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. P.
Chopra(5). These are however, illustrative
case,% where an exception was made to the
general rule. No hard and fast rule as to
which circumstances would in a given case
constitute an exception to the general rule
can possibly be laid down as the Tribunal in
each case keeping the objectives of industrial
adjudication in mind, must in a spirit of
fairness and justice confront the question
whether the circumstances of the case require
that an exception should be made and
compensation would meet the ends of justice."
Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela vs A. K. Roy & Ors on 18 December, 1969
On a consideration of all the circumstances,
the present case, in our' view, was, one such
'case., The Tribunal exercised its discretion
mechanically without weighing the
circumstances of the case. That was no
exercise of discretion at all. There is ample
authority, to the effect that if a statutory
tribunal exercises its discretion on the basis
of irrelevant considerations or without regard
to relevant considerations, certiorari may
properly issue to quash its order. (See S. A.
de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative
Action (2nd ed) pp. 324-325. One such
relevant consideration, the disregard of which
would render its order amenable to
interference, would be the well-settled
principles laid down in decisions binding on
the Tribunal to whom the discretion is
entrusted. The refusal by the High Court to
interfere was equally mechanical and amounted
to refusal to exercise its jurisdiction. Its
order, therefore, becomes liable to
interference."
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shri P.P. Chopra on 12 September, 1969
"As exceptions to the general rule of
reinstatement, there have been cases where
reinstatement has not been considered as
either desirable or expedient. These were the
cases where there had been strained relations
between the employer and the employee, where
the post held by the aggrieved employee had
been one of trust and confidence or where,
though dismissal or discharge was
unsustainable owing to some infirmity in the
impugned order, the employee was, found to
have been guilty of an activity subversive of
or prejudicial to the interests of the
industry. These cases are to be found in
Assam Oil Co. Ltd. v. Workmen(1); Workmen of
Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v.-
Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd.(3);
Doomur Dulung Tea Estate v. Workmen(4)) and
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. P.
Chopra(5). These are however, illustrative
case,% where an exception was made to the
general rule. No hard and fast rule as to
which circumstances would in a given case
constitute an exception to the general rule
can possibly be laid down as the Tribunal in
each case keeping the objectives of industrial
adjudication in mind, must in a spirit of
fairness and justice confront the question
whether the circumstances of the case require
that an exception should be made and
compensation would meet the ends of justice."
Tulsidas Paul vs The Second Labour Court, W.B. And Ors. on 3 February, 1971
The general rule of reinstatement in the absence of special
circumstances was also recognised in the case of Workmen of
Assam Match Co. Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court
A & anr. (6) and has again been affirmed recently in M/s.
Tulsidas Paul v. The Second Labour Court, W.B. & ors. (7).
In Messrs Tulsidas Paul(7) it has been emphasised that no
hard and fast rule as 'to which circumstances would
establish an exception to the general rule could be laid
down and the Tribunal must In each case decide the question
in a spirit of fairness and justice in keeping with the
objectives of industrial adjudication.
(1) [1970] I.L.L.J. 288. (2) (1969) 3 S.C.R. 457.
(3) C.A. 382/66 d/14.-8-1967. (4) C.A. 5161-1966 d/26-10-
1967
(5) [1970] I.L.L.J.63. (6) C.As. 1070-1071/1963 d/27-10-64.
(7) C.A. 1607/1966 d/3-2-1971.
Management Of Churakulam Tea Estate (P) ... vs Workmen And Anr. on 3 September, 1968
"As exceptions to the general rule of
reinstatement, there have been cases where
reinstatement has not been considered as
either desirable or expedient. These were the
cases where there had been strained relations
between the employer and the employee, where
the post held by the aggrieved employee had
been one of trust and confidence or where,
though dismissal or discharge was
unsustainable owing to some infirmity in the
impugned order, the employee was, found to
have been guilty of an activity subversive of
or prejudicial to the interests of the
industry. These cases are to be found in
Assam Oil Co. Ltd. v. Workmen(1); Workmen of
Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v.-
Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd.(3);
Doomur Dulung Tea Estate v. Workmen(4)) and
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. P.
Chopra(5). These are however, illustrative
case,% where an exception was made to the
general rule. No hard and fast rule as to
which circumstances would in a given case
constitute an exception to the general rule
can possibly be laid down as the Tribunal in
each case keeping the objectives of industrial
adjudication in mind, must in a spirit of
fairness and justice confront the question
whether the circumstances of the case require
that an exception should be made and
compensation would meet the ends of justice."
Workmen Employed In The United ... vs The Managemnt Of United Bleachers (P.) ... on 27 June, 1967
Shri Chagla has argued that in the present case there was
exercise of judicial discretion by the Labour, Court and
impugned order was made mechanically without considering the
relevant circumstances and applying its mind to the question
as to which of the two reliefs was more appropriate.
On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that Bhagavati,
the workman concerned in this case, is innocent and the
management was found by the Labour Court on evidence to have
resorted to unfair labour practice. The chit, Ex. 12, was
also held not to be in the handwriting of Bhagavati. It is
further emphasised that criminal proceedings 'Were also
started against Bhagavati but he was discharged in the
criminal case for want of evidence implicating him. The
respondent's learned counsel has, in support of his
submission,, drawn our attention to The Punjab National Bank
Ltd. v. Its Workmen(1), M. L. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Its
Employees(1) and Workmen of United Bleachers (P) Ltd., v.
United Bleachers (P) Ltd . (3), (a decision High Court).
In the Punjab
(1)[1960] 1 S.C.R 806. (2) [1961] 11 L.L.J. 107 (S.C.)
Mejomon P.Lukose vs Employees State Insurance Corporation
Shri Chagla has argued that in the present case there was
exercise of judicial discretion by the Labour, Court and
impugned order was made mechanically without considering the
relevant circumstances and applying its mind to the question
as to which of the two reliefs was more appropriate.
On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that Bhagavati,
the workman concerned in this case, is innocent and the
management was found by the Labour Court on evidence to have
resorted to unfair labour practice. The chit, Ex. 12, was
also held not to be in the handwriting of Bhagavati. It is
further emphasised that criminal proceedings 'Were also
started against Bhagavati but he was discharged in the
criminal case for want of evidence implicating him. The
respondent's learned counsel has, in support of his
submission,, drawn our attention to The Punjab National Bank
Ltd. v. Its Workmen(1), M. L. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Its
Employees(1) and Workmen of United Bleachers (P) Ltd., v.
United Bleachers (P) Ltd . (3), (a decision High Court).
In the Punjab
(1)[1960] 1 S.C.R 806. (2) [1961] 11 L.L.J. 107 (S.C.)
1