Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.38 seconds)U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ... vs Shivaji on 10 November, 2006
29.The Honourable Apex Court while considering the Doctrine of Proportionality in U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS vs. SHIVAJI [(2006) 13 SCC 637] has held in the following manner:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Shanmugam S. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 23 November, 2004
16.On the contrary, the petitioner has accepted the fact that he has unauthorisedly absented himself. It is no doubt true that a sworn statement made by the delinquent employee cannot be construed as an admission. But in the present case on hand, the petitioner has not made any contra statement before the Enquiry Officer. His consistent plea before the authorities was that he was sick and therefore he could not be present for duty. He further explained as to why he could not report the matter to the concerned hospital authorities. In other words, the reply of the petitioner was more of a pleading than of a denial. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in S.SHANMUGAM vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, VELLORE AND ANOTHER [2005 (1) L.L.N. 404] does not help the case of the petitioner, as in that case no enquiry was conducted and an order adversely affected the rights of the delinquent officer, has been passed based upon a statement. Therefore, this Court finds that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved. It is further to be seen that the petitioner was aware of the relevant rules, even though he pleaded ignorance, as for the similar occurrence, he was imposed with a minor punishment earlier. Hence, this Court finds that the charges framed against the petitioner are duly proved.
Telecom District Manager And Others vs Keshab Deb on 6 May, 2008
In this connection, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER AND OTHERS vs. KESHAB DEB [(2008) 8 SCC 402] which is as follows:
Lic Of India vs R. Suresh on 14 March, 2008
25.Considering the scope of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Honourable Apex Court in LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs. R.SURESH [(2008) 11 SCC 319] has held as follows:
Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981
"MOHAN LAL vs. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD. [(1981) 3 SCC 225]
D.K.YADAV vs. J.M.A.INDUSTRIES LTD. [(1993) 3 SCC 259]
NICKS (INDIA) TOOLS vs. RAM SURAT AND ANOTHER [(2004) 8 SCC 222]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. vs. N.B.NARAWADE [(2005) 3 SCC 134]
U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS vs. SHIVAJI [(2006) 13 SCC 637]
MANIK SAHADU BORSHE vs. UNION OF INDIA [2005-II-LLJ 63 (BOMBAY)]
S.SHANMUGAM vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, VELLORE AND ANOTHER [2005 (1) L.L.N. 404]
W.P.NO.23983 OF 2002 DECIDED ON 11.12.2009
W.P.NOS.23044 and 24473 OF 2006 DECIDED ON 12.01.2011"
Management Of Monghyr Factory Of Itc ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ... on 24 July, 1978
34.This Court in ITC Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [(1978) 3 SCC 504] opined that negligence by itself cannot be held to constitute misconduct stating: (SCC p.517, para 16)
16. Mr Pai submitted that even neglect of work simpliciter can be a misconduct within the meaning of sub-clause (1) of clause (ii) of Standing Order 20 apart from its being a fault within the meaning of sub-clause (b) of clause (i) of the said Standing Order as the word habitual in the former merely qualifies the word negligence and not the expression neglect of work. This argument has to be stated merely to be rejected. Mere neglect of work cannot be both. If it is so, it is a fault. If it is habitual, that is, if it is repeated several times then only it is misconduct. It may well be that fault of one kind or the other as enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Standing Order 20(i) if repeated more than once may be habitual within the meaning of Standing Order 20(ii)(1), and especially in the light of the fourth fault being a misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 20(a), but on the facts of this case, there was no charge against Respondent 3 that he was guilty of habitual neglect of work. Moreover the Labour Court found that the negligence of the workman was not of a serious kind. Some others in the factory also contributed to it. We, therefore, reject Point 2.
Jagdish Singh vs Punjab Engineering College & Ors on 14 May, 2009
"11.In the recent judgment, in JAGDISH SINGH vs. PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND OTHERS [(2009) 7 SCC 301], the Honourable Apex Court, considering the case of a sweeper, who was dismissed from service on account of his absence on four spells totalling to fifteen days in all in two months to sort out his daughter's problem with her-in-laws and considering the fact that it is not a case of habitual absenteeism and the major punishment of dismissal from service is shocking the consciousness of the Court, has observed and held as follows: