Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.49 seconds)Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
In the said case a
contention was canvassed on behalf of the workmen that the view taken
by the High Court to the extent it held that the order of termination
would relate back to the date of the original order of termination,
was erroneous and to bolster the said submission reliance was placed
on Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. (supra). The Court, after referring to
earlier decisions, opined that Section 11-A of the Act confers a wide
power upon the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or the National
Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal
of workman. While adjudicating on a reference made to it, the Labour
Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, if
satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified,
may, while setting aside the same, direct reinstatement of the workman
on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such
other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser
punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of
the case may require. Only in a case where the satisfaction is
reached by the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, that
an order of dismissal was not justified, the same can be set aside.
So long as the same is not set aside, it remains valid. But once
whether on the basis of the evidence brought on record in the domestic
inquiry or by reason of additional evidence, the employer makes out a
case justifying the order of dismissal the stand that such order of
dismissal can be given effect to only from the date of the award and
not from the date of passing of the order of punishment was not
legally acceptable.
Section 10A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Vishweshwaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd vs Abdul Gani & Ors on 11 November, 1997
22. Thereafter, it granted leave and directed the appeals to be placed for
final disposal before a Constitution Bench. When the matter came
before the Constitution Bench in Vishweshwaraiah Iron and Steel Ltd.
v. Abdul Gani and others[12], the larger Bench, on 31.1.2002, passed
the following order: -
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Desh Raj Gupta vs Industrial Tribunal Iv, U.P. Lucknow ... on 12 September, 1990
In view of the aforesaid decisions and in view of the
findings recorded by the Labour Court, we are of the considered
opinion that the view expressed in Desh Raj Gupta case is not
correct. It is accordingly overruled. Following the judgment of
the Constitution Bench, we hold that on the Labour Court’s
recording a finding that the domestic enquiry was defective and
giving opportunity to adduce the evidence by the management and
the workman and recording of the finding that the dismissal by
the management was valid, it would relate back to the date of
the original dismissal and not from the date of the judgment of
the Labour Court.”
P. H. Kalyani vs M/S. Air France Calcutta on 15 February, 1963
“3. The moot question would arise whether the ratio of the
Constitution Bench judgment in Kalyani case would almost
automatically apply to such cases apart from the cases arising
under Section 33 of the I.D. Act.
Pradip Chandra Parija And Ors vs Pramod Chandra Patanaik And Ors on 4 December, 2001
In our view, a Bench of
two learned Judges cannot make a reference directly to a
Constitution Bench; this has been laid down in the judgment in
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik[13]. It is,
therefore, that this Constitution bench will not decide the
reference.”