Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.33 seconds)
D And H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs Ramesh on 19 August, 2025 cites

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005

It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this question, since the matter has been dealt with in detail in a recent decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade [(2005) 3 SCC 134 : (2005) 2 Scale 302] . This Court summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 141, para 20) "20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 265 - Full Document

Ram Lal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 3 June, 2004

10.2 As regards judgment in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) relied by counsel for the respondents, it was a case where on same set of facts the accused was acquitted by the criminal Court, but in the present case the trial is still in progress before the concerned Court. Thus, there cannot be any benefit of the said case to the respondents in the present case. If the respondents wanted to rely on the ratio of the said case, then they should have requested for awaiting outcome of the criminal trial by moving appropriate application in the proceedings and by stating that the enquiry before the trial Court and the criminal Court is based on same set Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL Signing time: 8/20/2025 5:48:44 PM 24 WA-839-2024 of facts but nothing of this sort was done by them.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 94 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Management Of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 10 September, 2004

Recently, in Muriadih Colliery BCC Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union [(2005) 3 SCC 331 : JT (2005) 2 SC 444] this Court after referring to and quoting the relevant passages from Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh [(2004) 8 SCC 200 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1067 : (2004) 7 Scale 608] and Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen [(1973) 2 SCC 502 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 510] held: (SCC p. 336, para 17) "The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence have undermined the discipline in the organisation, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under Section 11-A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 163 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next