Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Management Of Ksrtc By Its Divisional ... vs B.C. Hiremath on 1 February, 2001 cites

Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central ... vs The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara ... on 21 September, 2000

14. Labour Court in paragraph 12 of its order which has bean reproduced above, concedes that the case of pilferage is a serious offence but an opportunity has to be given to improve himself in future which has not been done. This finding clearly indicates that the Labour Court was of the view that the workman had pilfered the money but took a lenient view to give an opportunity to the respondent to improve himself, losing sight of the fact that earlier the workman had been charge sheeted in 19 cases and in some of them he had been punished for the misconduct. Single Judge proceeded as if the charges are proved and the order of dismissal as disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Janatha Bayaar (SKCCWS) Ltd. v. Secretary, Sahakari Naukarara Sangha AIR 2000 SC 3129 : 2000 (7) SCC 517 : 2000-II-LLJ-1395 while considering as to whether the High Court is justified in confirming the order passed by the Labour Court reinstating the respondent workman with 25% back wages in spite of specific finding of fact that the charges of breach of trust and misappropriation of goods for the value given in the said charges had been clearly established, held that the order of reinstatement of a workman against whom misappropriation is established would be unjustified. A proved act of misappropriation cannot be taken lightly even though a number such mis-appropriation cases remain undisclosed. In cases of misappropriation workman cannot be rewarded or legalised any reinstatement in service with full or part back wages. After referring to the case laws, the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 found as under 2000-II-LLJ-1395 at p. 1397:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 183 - M B Shah - Full Document

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs Krishnan Behari And Ors on 19 February, 1996

"6. As stated above, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the findings given by the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriation of funds entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established. After giving the said findings, in our view, the Labour Court materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the management removing the workmen from service and reinstating them with 25% back wages. Once an act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled. Re: Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari in UPSRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the ground that the alleged misconduct of the conductor was an attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65/- to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 213: passengers for a sum of Rs. 2.35 but recovering at Rs. 5.35 per head and also by making entry in the way bill as having received the amount of Rs. 2.35, which figure was subsequently altered to Rs. 2.85. The Court held that it was not possible to say that the Corporation removing the conductor from service has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 200 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Punjab Diary Development Corporation vs Kala Singh Etc on 7 May, 1997

Similarly in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. v. Kala Singh this Court considered the case of a workman who was working as a Dairy Helper-cum-cleaner for collecting milk from various centers and was charged for the misconduct that he inflated the quantum of milk supplies in the milk centers and also inflated the quality of fat contents where there were less fat contents. The Court held that in view of the proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that the management had lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to grant relief with minor penalty."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 145 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1