Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
The Management vs N. Sethumadhavan on 16 June, 2025 cites

Engine Valves Ltd. vs Labour Court, Madras And Another on 27 November, 1990

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 42 - A S Anand - Full Document

Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Management Of Tnstc Ltd vs M. Chandrasekaran on 2 September, 2016

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Director General, Esi & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 117 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

John D Souza vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 16 October, 2019

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 67 - S Kant - Full Document

Divisional Controller,Ksrtc (Nwkrtc) vs A.T. Mane on 27 September, 2004

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 213 - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977

12.2. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner viz., (1) John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, (2) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254, (3) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, (4) Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 635, (5) Director General, ESI & Another v. T. Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC 708, (6) Dawn Mills Company v. Sukhdev Prasad Dhaneshwar & Another reported in Appeal No.1456 of 1987, (7) Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., & Another reported (1978) 3 SCC 1, (8) The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd., v. M. Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 (3) LLN 513 (SC, (9) Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1991(1) LLN 268, (10) Messrs Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 518 and (11) Management of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) W.P. No.3541 of 2022 Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. The Workmen and others reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564, are concerned, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are Summary in nature and the Tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of Domestic enquiry that the same was conducted properly in compliance with natural justice and prima facie case of dismissal is made out and the punishment does not amount to unfair labour practice and victimisation. When the Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry from inherent defects or infirmity, it has to come to its conclusion on assessment of evidence adduced by the parties and standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probability' and not a 'proof beyond all reasonable doubts'and and while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested under Section 10(1)(c) of the Indsutrial Distes Act and decide upon the proportionality of punishment. Further in the domestic enquiry, all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply and to follow by fair and natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 650 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next