Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.35 seconds)
Divisional Manager, Apsrtc And Another vs E. Raja Reddy And Another on 4 October, 1999 cites

State Bank Of India And Ors vs Samarendra Kishore Endow And Anr on 18 January, 1994

40. The Full Bench relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa (supra) and State Bank of India (supra), in which the Supreme Court held that imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it, but not the High Court-or the Administrative Tribunal, as the case may be, as the power under Article 226 is one of judicial review and it is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. But in cases where the punishment is awarded by the management to a workman covered by the provisions of the Act, the Labour Court/ Tribunal is conferred with the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act to go into the validity of such orders and also award lesser punishment in appropriate cases. The power is akin to that of an appellate authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 200 - Full Document

Scooter India Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 31 October, 1995

20. The Supreme Court in Scooter India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Lucknow, while interpreting Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'U.P. Act') which is analogous to Section 11-A of the Act, observed that the Labour Court even after finding the inquiry to be fair and lawful and findings not to be vitiated in any manner, still may interfere with the order of termination of service passed against the workman in exercise of its power under Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 Next