Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.41 seconds)
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013 cites

J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007

vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 579 - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Anr. vs S.C. Sharma on 11 January, 2005

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S. C. Sharma (supra), the Court found that the services of the respondent had been terminated under Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the charge that he was absconding from duty. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that no material was available with the disciplinary authority which could justify invoking of Rule 19(ii) and the order of dismissal could not have been passed without holding regular inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did not accept the appellants’ contention that invoking of Rule 19(ii) was justified merely because the respondent did not respond to the notices issued to him and did not offer any explanation for his willful absence from duty for more than two years. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. The High Court further held that even though the respondent- employee had not pleaded or produced any evidence that after dismissal from service, he was not gainfully employed, back wages cannot be denied to him. This Court relied upon some of the earlier judgments and held that in view of the respondent’s failure to discharge the initial burden to show that he was not gainfully employed, there was ample justification to deny him back wages, more so because he had absconded from duty for a long period of two years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 317 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next