Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
In case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee versus National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta reported in 1999 SCC Lab. & Service page 596, it has been observed by the apex court that it is true that the apex court in some of the cases has held that the termination order is not punitive where an employee has been given suitable warning and has been advised to improve himself or where he has been given long rope by way of extension of probation. However, in all such cases where simple orders of termination do not contain any word amounting to stigma but there is stigmatic word in the impugned order which cannot be ignored because it will have effect on the appellant's future. Stigma need not be contained in the order but may also be contained in an order or proceedings on the basis of which the order has been passed.
Nar Singh Pal vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 March, 2000
In case of Nar Sing versus Union of India and others reported in 2000 AIR SCW 1141, the apex court has considered two aspects one of which is that the retrenchment compensation under section 25-F has been paid to the respondent workman concerned and the same has been encashed by the workman does not debar the workman from challenging the order of termination being violative of the fundamental right or constitutional right. The apex court has also observed that the termination of service on the basis of some incident by paying retrenchment compensation and the order passed on the basis of preliminary inquiry and not on the basis of regular departmental inquiry without issuing chargesheet or giving opportunity of hearing being punitive in nature, is liable to be set aside.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
If the aforesaid principles laid down by the apex court in case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. (supra) are kept in mind while appreciating the impugned award passed by the labour court and while appreciating the facts and circumstances of the present case, certainly, the impugned order cannot be treated to be simple order of termination and/or retrenchment as alleged by the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view that the labour court was right in passing the impugned award of reinstatement of the respondent workman. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position, I am of the view that the impugned award passed by the labour court does not require any interference of this court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1