Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Panjaram Dharmaji Wagdarkar vs Pm Ruikar Trust Thru. President on 11 January, 2016 cites

The Management Of National Seeds ... vs K.V. Rama Reddy on 29 September, 2006

14] That leaves us with the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to prejudice being caused to the employee on account of denial of an opportunity to engage services of lawyer. The learned Single Judge in this regard has held that the President was himself a lawyer and that Presenting Officer was also holding a law degree and as such, it was necessary for the Committee to have allowed the employee to engage the services of a lawyer. Though Shri Dastane has relied on various judgments, we will refer to the judgment of Their Lordships in the case of National Seeds Corporation Limited .vs. K.V. Rama Reddy reported in (2006) 11 SCC 645 (cited supra), wherein Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the issue with regard to engagement of a legal practitioner. Their Lordships were considering Rule 37(7) of the National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992. It will be relevant to reproduce the following observations of the Apex Court, wherein Their Lordships have also considered the earlier judgments on the issue :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 57 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013

We, therefore, find that it will be in the interest of justice to maintain the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as it grants reinstatement with continuity but restricts the claim of back wages to 25%. We are fortified in the view that we are taking in view of ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:36:08 ::: LPA.107.07 29 judgment of Apex Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni .vs. Y.P. Education Society and others reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 (cited supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 262 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

The Dunlop Rubber Co vs Workmen on 10 November, 1964

33. The earlier decisions in N. Kalindi's case (supra); Dunlop Rubber Company's case (supra) and Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S.) and another, (1961 (2) LLJ417), were followed and it was held that the law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee as part of his right to be heard. It was further specified that there is no right to representation as such unless the Company, by its Standing Orders, recognises such a ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:36:08 ::: LPA.107.07 23 right. In this case, it was also laid down that a delinquent employee has no right to be represented in the departmental proceedings by a lawyer unless the facts involved in the disciplinary proceedings were of a complex nature in which case the assistance of a lawyer could be permitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 63 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Crescent Dyes And Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi on 16 December, 1992

34. We have seriously perused the judgment of the High Court which, curiously, has treated the decision of this Court in Crescent Dyes's case (supra) as a decision in favour of the respondent No.1. The process of reasoning by which this decision has been held to be in favour of respondent No.1 for coming to the conclusion that he had a right to be represented by a person who, though an office-bearer of the Trade Union, was not an employee of the appellant is absolutely incorrect and we are not prepared to subscribe to this view. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the High Court in so far as it purports to quash the order of the Appellate Authority, by which the Draft Standing Orders were certified, cannot be sustained."
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

Indian Overseas Bank vs Indian Overseas Bank Officers ... on 4 October, 2001

7. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation (See N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 914), Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1392), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993 (2) SCC 115), and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:36:08 ::: LPA.107.07 19 Overseas Bank Officers' Association and Another (2001(9) SCC 540).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - S R Babu - Full Document

D.G. Railway Protection Force & Ors vs K. Raghuram Babu on 3 March, 2008

5] The learned Counsel in this respect relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of N. Kalindi and others .vs. M/s. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur reported in AIR 1960 SC 914(1), D.G. Railway Protection Force and others .vs. K. Raghuram Babu reported in (2008) 4 SCC 406 and National Seeds Corporation Limited .vs. K.V. Rama Reddy reported in (2006) 11 SCC 645.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - M Katju - Full Document

Kalindi & Others vs Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co., Ltd on 25 March, 1960

33. The earlier decisions in N. Kalindi's case (supra); Dunlop Rubber Company's case (supra) and Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S.) and another, (1961 (2) LLJ417), were followed and it was held that the law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee as part of his right to be heard. It was further specified that there is no right to representation as such unless the Company, by its Standing Orders, recognises such a ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:36:08 ::: LPA.107.07 23 right. In this case, it was also laid down that a delinquent employee has no right to be represented in the departmental proceedings by a lawyer unless the facts involved in the disciplinary proceedings were of a complex nature in which case the assistance of a lawyer could be permitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 106 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1