Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors on 6 September, 2013
In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay S.
Sathaye vs. Indian Airlines Ltd (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment read as under:
Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. & Ors on 18 October, 2010
"10. Approval means confirming, ratifying, assenting,
sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by
another. The very act of approval means, the act of passing
judgment, the use of discretion, and determining as an
adjudication therefrom unless limited by the context of the
statute. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal
proposition that if a statute provides for the approval of the
higher authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it is
approved and the same remains inconsequential and
unenforceable. (Vide Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group
Housing Society Ltd. [(2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Civ) 904] , SCC pp. 341-42, paras 10-11.)
M/S. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., Calcutta vs Its Workmen on 3 March, 1961
In Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 1567]
this Court held as under : (AIR p. 1570, para 6)
"6. ... there would be the class of cases where long
unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to
an inference that such service is intended to be
abandoned by the employee."
State Of Haryana vs Om Parkash And Anr. on 18 January, 1996
14. For the purpose of termination, there has to be positive
action on the part of the employer while abandonment of
service is a consequence of unilateral action on behalf of the
employee and the employer has no role in it. Such an act
cannot be termed as "retrenchment" from service. (See State
of Haryana v. Om Parkash [(1998) 8 SCC 733 : 1999 SCC
(L&S) 262] .)
The Buckingham And Carnatic Co. Ltd vs Venkatiah And Anr on 2 August, 1963
In Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah [AIR
1964 SC 1272] , while dealing with a similar case, this Court
observed : (AIR p. 1275, para 5)
"5. ... Abandonment or relinquishment of service
is always a question of intention, and, normally,
such an intention cannot be attributed to an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
W.P.(C) 2392/2012 Page 12 of 16
Signing Date:13.05.2024
19:16:03
employee without adequate evidence in that
behalf."
G. T. Lad & Ors vs Chemicals & Fibres Of India Ltd on 6 December, 1978
A similar view has been reiterated in G.T. Lad v. Chemical
and Fibres of India Ltd. [(1979) 1 SCC 590 : 1979 SCC (L&S)
76 : AIR 1979 SC 582]
Syndicate Bank vs General Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff ... on 25 April, 2000
In Syndicate Bank v. Staff Assn. [(2000) 5 SCC 65 : 2000
SCC (L&S) 601] and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor
Ali Khan [(2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 965 : AIR
2000 SC 2783] this Court ruled that if a person is absent
beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can
be granted, he should be treated to have resigned and
ceases to be in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold
an enquiry or to give any notice as it would amount to useless
formalities.
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
In Syndicate Bank v. Staff Assn. [(2000) 5 SCC 65 : 2000
SCC (L&S) 601] and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor
Ali Khan [(2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 965 : AIR
2000 SC 2783] this Court ruled that if a person is absent
beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can
be granted, he should be treated to have resigned and
ceases to be in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold
an enquiry or to give any notice as it would amount to useless
formalities.
V.C., Banaras Hindu University & Ors vs Shrikant on 12 May, 2006
A similar view has been reiterated in Banaras
Hindu University v. Shrikant [(2006) 11 SCC 42 : (2007) 1
SCC (L&S) 327] , Chief Engineer (Construction) v. Keshava
Rao [(2005) 11 SCC 229 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 872] and Bank of
Baroda v. Anita Nandrajog [(2009) 9 SCC 462 : (2009) 2 SCC
(L&S) 689] .