Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
Bank Of India vs Central Government Industrial ... on 16 June, 2010 cites

Indian Central Tin Works vs The Employees' State Insurance ... on 24 March, 1971

The grievance of the workman with respect to the relief refused to him is well founded in law. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the case of Hindustan Tin Works vs. Employees reported in 1979(2) SCC 80 wherein a three- judge bench of the Apex Court held in paragraph 9 that "Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness".
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 63 - Full Document

Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980

In the case of Surendra Kumar vs. Industrial Tribunal reported in 1980(4) SCC 443 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court discussed the reasons which may weigh with the Court in making a departure from the normal rule of full back wages. Thus opined Their Lordships "Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-à-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but 15 we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 415 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation Limited on 29 August, 2007

called confessional statement was obviously made by the workman in order to avoid the capital punishment of dismissal. A confession in order to be of any assistance to the writ petitioner should have been made a) voluntarily and b) the confession should have been with "reference to the charge against the accused". He never confessed to have committed the misconduct charged against him. His prayer for lesser punishment treating his lapse a "minor misconduct" under para 19.7(I) was aimed at securing an advantage and is therefore irrelevant under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. In any event a confession in order to become operative needs some amount of corroboration. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the case of Bharat vs. State of U.P. reported in 1971(3) SCC 950 wherein Their Lordships held "that a true confession made voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence to corroborate it". In this case, far from any corroboration, there is even no evidence to show that the bank suffered or was likely to suffer any loss by the alleged misconduct of the workman. The finding of the learned Tribunal on the contrary is that no amount is due to the bank. Mr. Mazumdar contended that no amount is due to the bank because by dismissing the workman the bank has realised its dues which would not have been possible otherwise. The dues of the bank were realised admittedly from out of the money payable to the workman. Therefore the bank's dues were fully secured. There was no scope or likelihood of the bank suffering any loss. Moreover if the bank had not allowed the credit limit of Rs.20,000/- to be grossly overdrawn or had the bank cancelled the credit card pursuant to the request of the workman made by the letter dated 5th October 1996 the unpleasant situation would not have arisen at all. The first issue is therefore answered in the negative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 73 - L S Panta - Full Document

Jagdish Saran & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 January, 1980

This writ petition, in the result, is dismissed and the counter claim is allowed. The writ petitioner is directed to pay full back wages from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Grant of interest is now a matter of procedure and ought to be granted in all cases where there is a decree for money unless there are strong reasons to decline the same ( See Jagdish vs. Union of India reported in 1999(3) SCC 257). The petitioner shall also pay costs assessed at Rs.20,000/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 261 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1