Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
S. Singaravelu vs General Manager on 13 July, 2007 cites

Indian Airlines Corporation, ... vs N. Sundaram on 3 October, 1991

In that case, one Assistant Manager (Personnel), who was a legally qualified and well trained in disciplinary proceedings, was availed by the Management as a Presenting Officer. When the delinquent has requested for representation through a lawyer, that was rejected. It was in those circumstances observed that, "the Corporation did have the services of a legally qualified and trained person, who had considerable experience in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings." The Division Bench has further held that the delinquent therein was in a disadvantageous position while meeting such a Presenting Officer, who was well qualified, and held that the delinquent was entitled for relief. However, on the factual situation in this case, I do not think that the said judgment has any application since the Presenting Officer appointed in the present case is not a legal practitioner or legally qualified person and he was a C.B.I. Inspector.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni ... on 17 November, 1982

15. The reference made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983 (1) L.L.J. 1) also has no application. That was a case where the issue involved was that the Rule governing the employees was silent about the assistance to the employees in the domestic enquiry and there was no inhibition to the employee to be defended by legal practitioner. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that the rejection of such representation for assistance by the delinquent is not proper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 295 - D A Desai - Full Document

Gnanasambandam S. vs Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. And ... on 13 February, 2001

16. Again, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in S. Gnanasambandam vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., (2001 (3) L.L.N. 677) has no application to the facts of the case, since that was relating to a case where the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent Management was a Law Graduate and on such factual situation, a decision was arrived at to equate with such a qualified person the delinquent employee should be provided with equally effective assistance.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - D Murugesan - Full Document

The Management Of National Seeds ... vs K.V. Rama Reddy on 29 September, 2006

In a recent judgment of the Supreme court in National Seeds Corporation vs. K.V. Rama Reddy (2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 512), in almost an identical situation, the option to be assisted by another employee was given as per the National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992. The Supreme Court has held that refusal by the employer to permit engagement of a legal practitioner is not prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent employee. Rule 31(7) of the above said Rules, which was involved in the said case was almost synonymous to the present Rules, which are relied upon by the first respondent Management. While construing the said rule, the Supreme Court had to refer to a Rule in the Railway Establishment Code as that of the present Rule involved. The Supreme Court has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 57 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kalindi & Others vs Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co., Ltd on 25 March, 1960

7. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that Page 4331 there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation (See N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 914), Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR SC 1392), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993 SCC (L&S) 360), and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association and Anr. (2002 SCC (L&S) 1043).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 106 - K C Gupta - Full Document

The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd vs Workmen And Others on 16 October, 1959

7. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that Page 4331 there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation (See N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 914), Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR SC 1392), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993 SCC (L&S) 360), and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association and Anr. (2002 SCC (L&S) 1043).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 38 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Crescent Dyes And Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi on 16 December, 1992

7. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that Page 4331 there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation (See N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 914), Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR SC 1392), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993 SCC (L&S) 360), and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association and Anr. (2002 SCC (L&S) 1043).
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

Indian Overseas Bank vs Indian Overseas Bank Officers ... on 4 October, 2001

7. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that Page 4331 there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation (See N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 914), Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR SC 1392), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993 SCC (L&S) 360), and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association and Anr. (2002 SCC (L&S) 1043).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - S R Babu - Full Document

C. L. Subramaniam vs Collector Of Customs, Cochin on 15 February, 1972

19. The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.L. Subramaniam vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin (1972 (1) L.L.J. 465), is also not applicable to the facts of this case. That was a case, where, while construing Rule 15 (5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Apex Court has held in the following terms:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 108 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next