Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Cholan Roadways Limited vs G. Thirugnanasambandam on 17 December, 2004
24. The Supreme Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd., vs. G.Thirugnanasambandam [2005 (1) LLJ 569] held that while exercising the powers under section 33(2)(b) of the Act what is required is preponderance of probabilities which is sufficient and not the proof beyond all reasonable doubts and only prima facie case has to be considered. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
Neeta Kaplish vs Presiding Officer Labour Court And Anr on 4 December, 1998
17. Therefore, section 11A of the I.D.Act, which has made a great inroad into the concept of Labour legislation which was originally the domain of the employer to decide the punishment in the enquiry, by shifting the same to the Court to decide otherwise regarding the punishment even while accepting the Enquiry Officers report. Therefore, it is an extension of the beneficial legislation given in favour of the workmen by transferring the power to the judicial authority for giving relief to workmen, of course, based on the Enquiry Officers report. In such event, as it is stated in the proviso, no fresh evidence shall be adduced. But, on the other hand, if the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the Enquiry Officers report is not fair and proper in the sense that opportunity has not been given, etc., the Labour Court gives one more opportunity to the employer to prove that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner and thereafter, decides the matter. In those circumstances, fresh evidence is adduced. This has been an established law throughout in India, as the Courts have held as above, while deciding about the term, material on record found in section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. That was the view expressed by the Honble Apex Court in Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another [1999 (1) LLJ 275], where it was held as under:
Lalla Ram vs Management Of D.C.M. Chemical Works ... on 16 February, 1978
25. Further, the jurisdiction of the authority exercising powers under section 33(2)(b) for granting approval is very limited as it was confirmed by the Honble Apex Court in Lalla Ram vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., and another [1978 (1) LLJ 507].
The Management Of Cheran Transport ... vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 2 April, 2002
In Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd., vs. Industrial Tribunal, Madras reported in 1993 (1) L.L.N. 870, M.Srinivasan,J., as he then was, held in Para.6 at page 871 that,
".. the Tribunal is entitled to consider whether the findings of the domestic enquiry officer is perverse or not. While doing so, the obligation on the part of the Tribunal is not to weigh or reappreciate the evidence for itself, but to examine the findings of the enquiry officer on the evidence of the domestic enquiry as it is, in order to find out whether there is a prima facie case; or if the findings are perverse, which renders essential to see whether the eye-witnesses, who alone could speak about the rash and negligent act of the employee, were examined or not."
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal, Madras And Anr. on 19 February, 1993
16.2. R.R.Jain,J., in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras and another by order dated 14 August 1997, made in Writ Petition No.12383 of 1986, held that in a case where the workman is charged for a rash and negligent act, the persons present on the side of accident alone can speak about the occurrence and as the management failed to examine any such eye-witness, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be sustained.
The Management Of Tamil Nadu State ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 29 June, 2006
In the light of the decision referred to above, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner-management had not examined any eye-witness before the enquiry officer, the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer itself is not sustainable in law, for want of legal evidence."