Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Andhra Pradesh Steel Wool ... vs Labour Court And Anr. on 26 December, 1986
If the services were not terminated the workmen ordinarily would have continued to work and would have earned their wages. When it was held that the termination of services was neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were always willing to serve but if they rendered service they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for the same. If the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due to them. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandal, (1971) 1 Lab LJ 508 and a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Labour Court, Lucknow, (1971) 1 Lab LJ 327 have taken this view and we are of the opinion that the view taken therein is correct."
Union Of India And Others vs Giriraj Sharma on 17 March, 1993
13. This aspect, Whether such proved misconduct of remaining absent would require the extreme and harsh punishment of dismissal or not, has been examined by the apex court in Union of India and Ors. v. Giriraj Sharma [AIR 1994 SC 215]; Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India and Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 3367] and recently in case of police constable in Shri Bhagwanlal Arya versus Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. [2004 SCC (L and S) 661], identical issue was examined by the apex court. The apex court held that the dismissal on the ground of alleged misconduct of such absence from duty is excessive and disproportionate and not permissible under the relevant provisions of the service rules. In that case, the police constable was absent from duty for two months, 7 days and 17 hours on medical ground. These facts are almost similar to the facts of this case.
Syed Zaheer Hussain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 December, 1998
13. This aspect, Whether such proved misconduct of remaining absent would require the extreme and harsh punishment of dismissal or not, has been examined by the apex court in Union of India and Ors. v. Giriraj Sharma [AIR 1994 SC 215]; Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India and Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 3367] and recently in case of police constable in Shri Bhagwanlal Arya versus Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. [2004 SCC (L and S) 661], identical issue was examined by the apex court. The apex court held that the dismissal on the ground of alleged misconduct of such absence from duty is excessive and disproportionate and not permissible under the relevant provisions of the service rules. In that case, the police constable was absent from duty for two months, 7 days and 17 hours on medical ground. These facts are almost similar to the facts of this case.
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. ... on 7 September, 1978
In this regard, I have considered the decision of the apex court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 75. The apex court observed as under in para 9 of the judgment:
Article 41 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 43 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
14. Thus, present one is a case wherein we are satisfied that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is not only highly excessive and disproportionate but is also one which was not permissible to be imposed as per the Service Rules. Ordinarily we would have set aside the punishment and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing the order of punishment afresh in accordance with law and consistently with the principles laid down in the judgment. However, that would further lengthen the life of litigation. In view of the time already lost, we deem it proper to set aside the punishment of removal from service and instead direct the appellant to be reinstated in service subject to the condition that the period during which the appellant remained absent from duty and the period calculated up to the date on which the appellant reports back to duty pursuant to this judgment shall not be counted as a period spent on duty. The appellant shall not be entitled to any service benefits for this period. Looking at the nature of partial relief allowed hereby to the appellant, it is now not necessary to pass any order of punishment in the departmental proceedings in lieu of the punishment of removal from service which has been set aside. The appellant must report on duty within a period of six weeks from today, to take benefit of this judgment."
Dhari Gram Panchayat vs Shri Brahad Saurashtra Safai Kamdar ... on 28 April, 1970
If the services were not terminated the workmen ordinarily would have continued to work and would have earned their wages. When it was held that the termination of services was neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were always willing to serve but if they rendered service they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for the same. If the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due to them. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandal, (1971) 1 Lab LJ 508 and a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Labour Court, Lucknow, (1971) 1 Lab LJ 327 have taken this view and we are of the opinion that the view taken therein is correct."
1