Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)The Dunlop Rubber Co vs Workmen on 10 November, 1964
We have carefully considered the submissions made as above.
The issue ought to have been considered on the basis of the nature
and character or the extent of rights, if any, of an officer-employee to
have, in a domestic-disciplinary enquiry, the assistance of someone
else to represent him for his defence in contesting the charges of
misconduct. This aspect has been the subject matter of
consideration by this Court on several occasions and it has been
categorically held that the law in this country does not concede an
absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries
as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to
representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and
standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary
proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such
representation. [N. Kalindi & Others vs M/s Tata Locomotive &
Engineering Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (AIR 1960 SC 914); Dunlop
Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. vs Their Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1392);
Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi
(1993(2) SCC 115) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Others (1999(1) SCC
626]. Irrespective of the desirability or otherwise of giving the
employees facing charges of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding
to ensure that his defence does not get debilitated due to
inexperience or personal embarrassments, it cannot be claimed as a
matter of right and that too as constituting an element of principle of
natural justice to assert that a denial thereof would vitiate the
enquiry itself.
Crescent Dyes And Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi on 16 December, 1992
We have carefully considered the submissions made as above.
The issue ought to have been considered on the basis of the nature
and character or the extent of rights, if any, of an officer-employee to
have, in a domestic-disciplinary enquiry, the assistance of someone
else to represent him for his defence in contesting the charges of
misconduct. This aspect has been the subject matter of
consideration by this Court on several occasions and it has been
categorically held that the law in this country does not concede an
absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries
as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to
representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and
standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary
proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such
representation. [N. Kalindi & Others vs M/s Tata Locomotive &
Engineering Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (AIR 1960 SC 914); Dunlop
Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. vs Their Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1392);
Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi
(1993(2) SCC 115) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Others (1999(1) SCC
626]. Irrespective of the desirability or otherwise of giving the
employees facing charges of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding
to ensure that his defence does not get debilitated due to
inexperience or personal embarrassments, it cannot be claimed as a
matter of right and that too as constituting an element of principle of
natural justice to assert that a denial thereof would vitiate the
enquiry itself.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharashtra Genl.Kamgar Union & Ors on 14 December, 1998
We have carefully considered the submissions made as above.
The issue ought to have been considered on the basis of the nature
and character or the extent of rights, if any, of an officer-employee to
have, in a domestic-disciplinary enquiry, the assistance of someone
else to represent him for his defence in contesting the charges of
misconduct. This aspect has been the subject matter of
consideration by this Court on several occasions and it has been
categorically held that the law in this country does not concede an
absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries
as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to
representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and
standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary
proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such
representation. [N. Kalindi & Others vs M/s Tata Locomotive &
Engineering Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (AIR 1960 SC 914); Dunlop
Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. vs Their Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1392);
Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi
(1993(2) SCC 115) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Others (1999(1) SCC
626]. Irrespective of the desirability or otherwise of giving the
employees facing charges of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding
to ensure that his defence does not get debilitated due to
inexperience or personal embarrassments, it cannot be claimed as a
matter of right and that too as constituting an element of principle of
natural justice to assert that a denial thereof would vitiate the
enquiry itself.
1