Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Om Parkash Sharma And Another vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi And ... on 15 February, 2000 cites

Scooters India Limited vs Labour Court And Ors. on 30 September, 1988

15. As against the aforesaid submission of Mr. Jagat Arora, Ms. Manjit Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman-Ram Sanehi submitted that the Labour Court rightly interfered with the punishment imposed upon Shri Ram Sanehi as the same was shocking and disproportionate having regard to the charges proved against him. She further submitted that as far as the incident of 27th March, 1982 is concerned, the Labour Court took into consideration the testimony of Shri C.L. Karnwal, Administrative Officer of the Management who appeared before the Enquiry Officer and stated that he was only stopped and not attacked. This was not a serious misconduct. It is further submitted that once the Labour Court exercised its jurisdiction this Court should not interefere with the same and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Scooters India Limited, Lucknow Vs. Labour Court, Lucknow and others .
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela vs A. K. Roy & Ors on 18 December, 1969

The manner of his functioning was bound to have an impact on the efficiency reputation of the financial institution which employed him. Beyond dispute, he had tampered with the accounts. To say that the punishment was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, either meaning that the offence was not grave, or meaning that the punishment was harsh, prima facie, does not appear to be correct. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. A.K. Roy , and Workmen of Bharat Fritz Warner (Private) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner (Private) Ltd. (1990-I LLN 481), illumine this area. Even where charges are not established, reinstatement is not the invariable rule. Relief must be moulded on diverse considerations. Loss of confidence and nature of post held must be borne in mind in deciding whether reinstatement or compensation should be ordered. That is the rule when disciplinary action itself is unsustainable. A broader approach is not justified when the findings of misconduct stand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 207 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1