Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)
Mr. Yog Raj vs M/S Delhi Transport Corporation on 1 May, 2007 cites

Lakshminarayana vs Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. on 17 April, 1996

However, the management did not examine any witness and workman himself admitted the charges. Therefore, there was no occasion for supply of any list of witnesses of examination of any witness before the enquiry officer. I am supported in my opinion by 1997 LAB. I.C. 187 Lakshminarayana vs. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd where the court observed :-
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - H L Dattu - Full Document

State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996

6. As regards the non-compliance of circular of DTC, the workman has been unable to show as to how the violation of principles of provision caused any prejudice to him. Unless the delinquent official is prejudicated by violation of some procedural rule, the enquiry proceedings cannot be set aside. If no prejudice is caused to them resulting from the non-violation of any procedural rules, non-interference is called for. I am supported in my opinion by State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma 1997 LLR 268. The Enquiry Officer has considered the statement given by the workman while recording his findings Ex. WW1/M3. The workman has nowhere controverted the allegations in the chargesheet that he was absent for 222 days unauthorizedly for the period 1.1.95 to 31.12.95. I do not find any violation of principles of natural justice or perversity in the findings. Accordingly, I hold that a proper and fair enquiry was conducted against the workman as per the principles of 6 natural justice. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1