Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs R. K. Jain & Ors on 17 September, 1971
29. The rights of an employer to avail itself of an opportunity to
satisfy the Tribunal by adducing evidence, when an enquiry held by
it was found to be defective or when no enquiry at all has been held,
have been stated in State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain [(1972) 1 SCR
755] as follows:
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Rajit Singh on 22 March, 2022
11. The reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
State of U.P. v. Rajit Singh4 is clearly misconceived when one bears
in mind the fact that the said judgment was concerned with
proceedings instituted before a High Court and emanating from an
order passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal. It
was in the aforesaid context that the Supreme Court had observed as
follows:
Workmen Of M/S Firestone Tyre & Rubber ... vs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company on 13 February, 1976
13. The Supreme Court in Workmen vs. Firestone Tyre &
Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.5 clarified that Section 11-A of the Act
empowers Tribunals to reappraise evidence, including findings from
domestic enquiries, and to modify or reduce punishments if deemed
unjustified, thereby curtailing managerial prerogatives. Further, it was
held that employers retain the right to present fresh evidence before
the Tribunal in cases of defective or absent domestic enquiries. The
Supreme Court's observations regarding the jurisdiction of a Tribunal
under Section 11-A are extracted hereinbelow:
M/S. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shri Jai Singh And Others on 20 September, 1961
In Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh [(1962) 3 SCR
684, 690 : (1961) 3 FLR 371 : (1961) 1 Lab LJ 644] the question
arose regarding the powers of an Industrial Tribunal to permit an
employer to adduce evidence before it justifying its action after the
domestic enquiry was held to be defective. It was contended on
behalf of the workmen that when once the domestic enquiry was
found to be defective, the tribunal had no option but to dismiss the
application filed by an employer for approval and that it cannot
allow an employer to adduce evidence before it justifying its action.
This Court rejected this contention as follows:
Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963
27. The right of an employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal
to justify his action was again reiterated in Khardah Co.
Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1964 SC 719 : (1964) 3 SCR 506 : (1963) 2
Lab LJ 452] as follows:
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh on 11 January, 1972
37. If there has been no enquiry held by the employer or if the
enquiry is held to be defective, it is open to the employer even now
to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal justifying
the order of discharge or dismissal. We are not inclined to accept the
contention on behalf of the workmen that the right of the employer
to adduce evidence before the Tribunal for the first time recognised
by this Court in its various decisions, has been taken away. There is
no indication in the section that the said right has been abrogated. If
the intention of the legislature was to do away with such a right,
which has been recognised over a long period of years, as will be
noticed by the decisions referred to earlier, the section would have
been differently worded. Admittedly, there are no express words to
that effect, and there is no indication that the section has impliedly
changed the law in that respect. Therefore, the position is that even
now the employer is entitled to adduce evidence for the first time
before the Tribunal even if he had held no enquiry or the enquiry
held by him is found to be defective. Of course, an opportunity will
have to be given to the workman to lead evidence contra. The stage
at which the employer has to ask for such an opportunity, has been
pointed out by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.
case. No doubt, this procedure may be time consuming, elaborate
and cumbersome. As pointed out by this Court in the decision just
referred to above, it is open to the Tribunal to deal with the validity
of the domestic enquiry, if one has been held as a preliminary issue.
If its finding on the subject is in favour of the management, then
there will be no occasion for additional evidence being cited by the
management. But if the finding on this issue is against the
management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an
opportunity to cite additional evidence justifying his action. This
right in the management to sustain its order by adducing independent
evidence before the Tribunal, if no enquiry has been held or if the
enquiry is held to be defective, has been given judicial recognition
over a long period of years.