Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
S.Rajasekaran vs The Joint Director on 24 June, 2011 cites

M/S. L&T Komatsu Ltd vs N. Udayakumar on 3 December, 2007

6.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in L&T KOMATSU LTD., VS. N.UDAYAKUMAR reported in 2008 (1) SCC 224 wherein it has been held that the unauthorised absence is a serious misconduct and in such matters, no indulgence can be shown. In this regard, paras 6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 108 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Burn And Company Ltd vs Its Workmen on 6 December, 1963

8. So far as the question whether habitual absenteeism means the gross violation of discipline, it is relevant to take note of what was stated by this Court in Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Workmen: (AIR p.530, para 5) 5.  There should have been an application for leave but Roy thought that he could claim, as a matter of right, leave of absence though that might be without permission and though there might not be any application for the same. This was gross violation of discipline. Accordingly, if the Company had placed him under suspension that was in order. On these findings, it seems to us that the Tribunal erred in holding that it could not endorse the Companys decision to dispense with his services altogether. In our opinion, when the Tribunal upheld the order of suspension it erred in directing that Roy must be taken back in his previous post of employment on the pay last drawn by him before the order of suspension."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. vs A. Unnikrishnan And Anr. on 30 November, 1993

"8.In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. (See Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 129 - Full Document

Mr.M.Sathaiah vs The Joint Director Of Agriculture on 14 December, 2010

5.But however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it must be held that the petitioner never had any intention to join at the transferred place namely Pudukkottai. The statement that he was a low paid employee, cannot be a ground, since persons with very same salary were also working in Pudukkottai. In any event, the issue relating to transfer, cannot be urged at this point of time. When once the petitioner had absented himself unauthorisedly and did not give any satisfactory explanation, the respondents, on the basis of the available materials, had terminated him from service. The proposition of law projected by the petitioner by citing the judgments referred to above, cannot help his cause. The question of absence will have to be seen from its own contest and the petitioner had no explanation for his long absence.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - K Chandru - Full Document
1