Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.31 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn., ... vs Mulu Amra on 10 March, 1992
(ii) The principle of natural justice has to be considered in the context of the facts situation and in view of the scheme and the rules applicable in a particular case. If an employee remains absent for more than a stipulated period and stature rules or standing order provide for automatic termination of his services in such an eventuality, without holding inquiry or giving opportunity of being heard, observance of principles of natural justice is mandatory proposition. The Supreme Court has categorically held in a catena of decisions that a statutory rule is void if it stipulates for automatic termination of services of an absenting employee after expiry of a stipulated period [in the light of the decision in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. ; Gujarat State Road Corporation and Anr. v. Mulu Antra AIR 1994 SC114; Scooters India Ltd. v. EV Eldred (1998) 6 SCC; Uptrol India Ltd. v. Smt Shammi Bhan and Scooters India Ltd. v. Mohammad Yaqub and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 61]
Scooters India And Ors. vs Vijai E.V. Eldred on 3 October, 1996
(ii) The principle of natural justice has to be considered in the context of the facts situation and in view of the scheme and the rules applicable in a particular case. If an employee remains absent for more than a stipulated period and stature rules or standing order provide for automatic termination of his services in such an eventuality, without holding inquiry or giving opportunity of being heard, observance of principles of natural justice is mandatory proposition. The Supreme Court has categorically held in a catena of decisions that a statutory rule is void if it stipulates for automatic termination of services of an absenting employee after expiry of a stipulated period [in the light of the decision in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. ; Gujarat State Road Corporation and Anr. v. Mulu Antra AIR 1994 SC114; Scooters India Ltd. v. EV Eldred (1998) 6 SCC; Uptrol India Ltd. v. Smt Shammi Bhan and Scooters India Ltd. v. Mohammad Yaqub and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 61]
Uptron India Limited vs Shammi Bhan & Anr on 6 February, 1998
(ii) The principle of natural justice has to be considered in the context of the facts situation and in view of the scheme and the rules applicable in a particular case. If an employee remains absent for more than a stipulated period and stature rules or standing order provide for automatic termination of his services in such an eventuality, without holding inquiry or giving opportunity of being heard, observance of principles of natural justice is mandatory proposition. The Supreme Court has categorically held in a catena of decisions that a statutory rule is void if it stipulates for automatic termination of services of an absenting employee after expiry of a stipulated period [in the light of the decision in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. ; Gujarat State Road Corporation and Anr. v. Mulu Antra AIR 1994 SC114; Scooters India Ltd. v. EV Eldred (1998) 6 SCC; Uptrol India Ltd. v. Smt Shammi Bhan and Scooters India Ltd. v. Mohammad Yaqub and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 61]
M/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub & Anr on 21 November, 2000
(ii) The principle of natural justice has to be considered in the context of the facts situation and in view of the scheme and the rules applicable in a particular case. If an employee remains absent for more than a stipulated period and stature rules or standing order provide for automatic termination of his services in such an eventuality, without holding inquiry or giving opportunity of being heard, observance of principles of natural justice is mandatory proposition. The Supreme Court has categorically held in a catena of decisions that a statutory rule is void if it stipulates for automatic termination of services of an absenting employee after expiry of a stipulated period [in the light of the decision in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. ; Gujarat State Road Corporation and Anr. v. Mulu Antra AIR 1994 SC114; Scooters India Ltd. v. EV Eldred (1998) 6 SCC; Uptrol India Ltd. v. Smt Shammi Bhan and Scooters India Ltd. v. Mohammad Yaqub and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 61]
Major G.S. Sodhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 November, 1990
(iii) It is well settled legal proposition that every action complained of is to be tested and analysed on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice [Vide Maj G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India and Ors. ; State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma ; S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India and Ors. ; Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1966 SC 2736.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
(iii) It is well settled legal proposition that every action complained of is to be tested and analysed on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice [Vide Maj G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India and Ors. ; State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma ; S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India and Ors. ; Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1966 SC 2736.
S.K. Singh vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 19 September, 1996
(iii) It is well settled legal proposition that every action complained of is to be tested and analysed on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice [Vide Maj G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India and Ors. ; State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma ; S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India and Ors. ; Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1966 SC 2736.
Amarsingh Rajendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 28 November, 1964
(iii) It is well settled legal proposition that every action complained of is to be tested and analysed on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice [Vide Maj G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India and Ors. ; State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma ; S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India and Ors. ; Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1966 SC 2736.