Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
The vs The on 2 March, 2010 cites

Indian Telephone Industries & Anr vs Prabhakar H. Manjuare & Anr on 30 October, 2002

10. AR for the workman has relied upon authorities reported as Indian Telephone Industries Ltd & Anr. Vs Prabhakar H. Manjare & Anr. 2003 LLR 68; Management of Ram Lal Anand College vs The workman Sh. C.L. Yadav & Anr 2006 LLR 346, Chairman and Managind Direcot, Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd, Chennai vs Mr. Rajan Isaac 2005 LLR 632, Association of Engineering Workers, Mumbai vs Hindustan Motor Mfg. Company, Mumbai 2004 LLR 495 to press his contention that non permitting of the employee to have representation from outside the company would result into hostile environment and inquiry on the ground of unsuitability of defence assistance was a valid ground to set aside the inquiry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 77 - S V Patil - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs G.Annadurai on 27 April, 2009

Est. Union and others 2007 LLR 897; Union of India and others vs G. Annadurai ( 2010) 1 SCC ( L & S) 278, Pepsu Road Transport corporation vs Rawel Singh ( 2008) 4 SCC 42, Bank of India vs Apurba Kumar Saha ( 1994) 2 SCC 615, Management of National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs K.V. Rama Reddy 2007 LLR 73, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharastra General Kamgar Union & Others 1999 LLR 180 and Indian Oil corporation and Anr vs Ashok Arora 1997 LLR 335 to press his contention that despite notice, when workmanfailed to participate in the inquiry and inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, workman is estopped from taking the plea of violation of principles of natural justice nor can he allege that he was not afforded opportunity to participate. It was also held that representation in the inquiry through a lawyer can be allowed only when Management is represented by a lawyer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - A Pasayat - Full Document

The Management Of National Seeds ... vs K.V. Rama Reddy on 29 September, 2006

Est. Union and others 2007 LLR 897; Union of India and others vs G. Annadurai ( 2010) 1 SCC ( L & S) 278, Pepsu Road Transport corporation vs Rawel Singh ( 2008) 4 SCC 42, Bank of India vs Apurba Kumar Saha ( 1994) 2 SCC 615, Management of National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs K.V. Rama Reddy 2007 LLR 73, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharastra General Kamgar Union & Others 1999 LLR 180 and Indian Oil corporation and Anr vs Ashok Arora 1997 LLR 335 to press his contention that despite notice, when workmanfailed to participate in the inquiry and inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, workman is estopped from taking the plea of violation of principles of natural justice nor can he allege that he was not afforded opportunity to participate. It was also held that representation in the inquiry through a lawyer can be allowed only when Management is represented by a lawyer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 57 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharashtra Genl.Kamgar Union & Ors on 14 December, 1998

Est. Union and others 2007 LLR 897; Union of India and others vs G. Annadurai ( 2010) 1 SCC ( L & S) 278, Pepsu Road Transport corporation vs Rawel Singh ( 2008) 4 SCC 42, Bank of India vs Apurba Kumar Saha ( 1994) 2 SCC 615, Management of National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs K.V. Rama Reddy 2007 LLR 73, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharastra General Kamgar Union & Others 1999 LLR 180 and Indian Oil corporation and Anr vs Ashok Arora 1997 LLR 335 to press his contention that despite notice, when workmanfailed to participate in the inquiry and inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, workman is estopped from taking the plea of violation of principles of natural justice nor can he allege that he was not afforded opportunity to participate. It was also held that representation in the inquiry through a lawyer can be allowed only when Management is represented by a lawyer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Arora on 5 February, 1997

Est. Union and others 2007 LLR 897; Union of India and others vs G. Annadurai ( 2010) 1 SCC ( L & S) 278, Pepsu Road Transport corporation vs Rawel Singh ( 2008) 4 SCC 42, Bank of India vs Apurba Kumar Saha ( 1994) 2 SCC 615, Management of National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs K.V. Rama Reddy 2007 LLR 73, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharastra General Kamgar Union & Others 1999 LLR 180 and Indian Oil corporation and Anr vs Ashok Arora 1997 LLR 335 to press his contention that despite notice, when workmanfailed to participate in the inquiry and inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, workman is estopped from taking the plea of violation of principles of natural justice nor can he allege that he was not afforded opportunity to participate. It was also held that representation in the inquiry through a lawyer can be allowed only when Management is represented by a lawyer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 180 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Agarwal vs M/S D.D. Industries Limited on 9 October, 2009

19. Management has placed on record Ex RW1/M-6 which is an award in ID No 92/06 titled Vijay Kumar Aggarwal vs D.D. Industries. A dispute was raised by the workman regarding termination of his services by the Management. Ex RW1/M-6 is an order of the Court on the validity of inquiry conducted against the workman. Inquiry conducted in that case was held to be just, fair and proper. Therefore, this is an evidence which operates as res judicata in the present proceedings. Therefore, on the basis of principle of res judicata, it can not be held that inquiry held against the workman in the present case is not just, fair and proper.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - S N Aggarwal - Full Document
1