Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.91 seconds)

Bharat Forge Co. Ltd vs Uttam Manohar Nakate on 18 January, 2005

It was in the course of the aforesaid incident that acts of violence and of damage to the property of the employer took place. In so far as the charge sheeted workman is concerned, the incident whereby he prevented the Area Manager from calling up the police by damaging the telephone stands duly established. Therefore, there is material and credible evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct against the Respondent workman. A charge of legal Page 3065 victimization against the employer has to be established on the basis of cogent evidence as in the case before the Supreme Court in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate 2005 I CLR 533. There was absolutely no factual foundation in the present case for sustaining the charge of legal victimization.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 128 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005

In the recent decision in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka the Supreme Court has emphasized the need to strike a balance between the interest of the workman and the bona fide concerns of the employer. The Court held that the punishment of dismissal in the face of an act of grave misconduct cannot be regarded to be wholly disproportionate so as to shock conscience of the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 163 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005

In Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade 2005 I CLR 803 the Supreme Court held that the use of the abusive language against a superior officer could not be termed to be an indiscipline calling for a lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating circumstances. In the present case, it has been urged on behalf of the Respondent workman that the past record of the workman was otherwise free from blemish. In my view, that itself would not justify an order of reinstatement, where the act of misconduct which stands proved is otherwise serious in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 265 - Full Document
1