Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
B. Deenadayalan vs The Management, Kancheepuram ... on 15 November, 2000 cites

The United Planters Associationof ... vs K.G. Sangameswaran & Anr on 6 March, 1997

10. In the precised argument advanced on the part of the learned senior counsel representing the appellant, he would submit that the charges against the appellant are that he allowed the co-employee to misappropriate the stock and the cash proceeds, thus causing loss to the Management; that the learned single Judge resenting to the Appellate Authority having appreciated the evidence and remarking that the Appellate Authority had almost conducted a de novo trial, as though the Appellate Authority had no power to appreciate the evidence or allow additional evidence, has arrived at the conclusion to hold that the Appellate Authority had gone beyond his jurisdiction and has therefore set aside the orders of the Appellate Authority. Commenting that the powers of the Appellate Authority under Section 41 of the Act are akin to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned senior counsel, in his attempt to drive his point home, would cite a judgment of the Apex Court delivered in The United Planters Association of Southern India v. K.G. Sangameswaran and an Ors. (1997)1 L.L.J. 1104 and would point out what is held by the Apex Court in para No. 19 of the said judgment, regarding the powers of the Appellate Authority aptly applies to the case in hand. Hence, we extract para 19 of the said judgment:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 59 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Thirumangalam Co. Operative Urban Bank ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Labour, ... on 6 January, 1992

31. Assessing the order passed by the learned single Judge, in the light of these Rules, it could be patently seen that the learned single Judge has arrived at his conclusions, based on the propositions propounded by this Court in different judgments at different points of time. So far as the first judgment cited by the learned single Judge reported in Thirumangalam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madurai (1992)2 L.L.J. 886, is concerned, a learned single Judge of this Court, following the decision of this Court rendered 40 years back in S.U.S. Davey Sons v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (1960)1 L.L.J. 485, has held that the reassessment of the evidence by the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Act is permissible but reassessment must be on proper basis and the same cannot be whimsical or arbitrary. According to this judgment, it is decided that the reassessment of the evidence by the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Act is permissible, provided it is on proper basis and only if the same is either whimsical or arbitrary, the reassessment is impermissible.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

S.U.S. Davey Sons vs Additional Commissioner For Workmen'S ... on 12 February, 1960

31. Assessing the order passed by the learned single Judge, in the light of these Rules, it could be patently seen that the learned single Judge has arrived at his conclusions, based on the propositions propounded by this Court in different judgments at different points of time. So far as the first judgment cited by the learned single Judge reported in Thirumangalam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madurai (1992)2 L.L.J. 886, is concerned, a learned single Judge of this Court, following the decision of this Court rendered 40 years back in S.U.S. Davey Sons v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (1960)1 L.L.J. 485, has held that the reassessment of the evidence by the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Act is permissible but reassessment must be on proper basis and the same cannot be whimsical or arbitrary. According to this judgment, it is decided that the reassessment of the evidence by the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Act is permissible, provided it is on proper basis and only if the same is either whimsical or arbitrary, the reassessment is impermissible.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1