Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.91 seconds)
M/S Delhi Transport Corporation vs Dheer Singh on 28 July, 2020 cites

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ramphal on 23 December, 2005

In the final award dated, 6th September, 2016, i.e. the impugned award in the present case, the ld. Tribunal distinguished the judgment in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Ramphal (supra). The ld. Tribunal took into consideration that though the Employee was not medically examined to know the contents of alcohol in his blood, the same could also be established through circumstantial evidence. The conductor had given a clear statement against the Employee. Passengers had also called the PCR. The bus had hit the footpath in subway. These facts proved that the situation was not normal. The ultimate fact that the bus was driven to Noida Depot, by a driver from Bawana Depot also shows that the Employee was not in his senses.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - G Mittal - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs C.S.T., New Delhi on 25 April, 2014

6. On the other hand, on behalf of the employee, it is argued that the termination is completely unjustifiable. Mr. Umesh Suri, ld. counsel submits that there was no damage to the bus or to the passengers. In fact, the manager at the Noida bus depot confirmed that the driver himself came to submit the memo in the control room. It is further argued that there is no W.P. (C) 6204/2017 Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:28.07.2020 15:26 evidence that the driver was drunk on the night of the incident, as there was no medical check up which was conducted to confirm that he was under the influence of alcohol and no FIR was registered. Thus, punishment meted out to driver is completely disproportionate. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Ramphal, [W.P(C) No. 727/2001, decided on 23rd December 2005].
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1