Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Lalla Ram vs Management Of D.C.M. Chemical Works ... on 16 February, 1978
"38. Consequently, the Labour Court shall
in the instant case re-visit the matter afresh within
the limit and scope of Section 33(2)(b), as
explained above and keeping in mind that the
exercise in hand is not adjudication of an
“industrial dispute” under Section 10(1)(c) or (d)
read with Section 11-A of the Act. However, if the
Labour Court finds that the domestic inquiry held
12\14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 32 of 2022
against the appellant is suffering from one of the
incurable defects as illustrated by this Court in
Mysore Steel Works (P) Ltd. [Mysore Steel Works
(P) Ltd. vs. Jitendra Chandra Kar, (1971) 1 LLJ
543 SC] or Lalla Ram [Lalla Ram vs. DCM
Chemical Works Ltd., (1978) 3 SCC 1 : 1978 SCC
(L&S) 396] cases, then it may look into the
evidence adduced by the parties for the purpose of
formation of its prima facie opinion."
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
10. As far as reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd V. Ram Gopal
Sharma and Others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 244 by the learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent Transport Corporation to contend that it is
open to the employee to approach the authority concerned by raising an
industrial dispute and that the approval of the action of the employer, if
confirmed, will take effect from the date of dismissal order passed by the
employer, is concerned, there is no doubt that the dismissal order passed by
the employer will take effect from the date of the dismissal order in case
approval is granted and in case, it is rejected, the order is non est in the eye of
law.
John D Souza vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 16 October, 2019
In this context, it is
worthwhile to notice a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2019 (18)
SCC 47 (John D.Souza Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation),
wherein the Apex Court observed as follows:
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Metal Press Works Ltd. vs Deb (H.R.) And Ors. on 1 June, 1961
"10. The contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta
High Court in Metal Press Works Limited v. Deb (H.R.)(1)where it
has been held that payment of wages and the making of the
application should be simultaneous with the order of discharge or
dismissal. It has further been pointed out that ’the word
"simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a notion
of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at
once and without delay", and it will depend upon the facts of each
case whether the application has been made at once or without
delay. This, we think, is the correct view to take.
1