Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.46 seconds)
The Management vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour on 26 November, 2019 cites

Ongc Ltd vs Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors on 17 April, 2015

In the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union [(2015) 6 SCC 494], wherein the Supreme Court held that the Corporation did not follow the due procedure as provided under the Appointment and Recruitment Rules for appointment of the workmen concerned in the Corporation or that their appointment orders excluded applicability of the Standing Orders, which is not permissible. It is further held that violation of Certified Standing Orders is void and can be ignored.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 91 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Glaxo Laboratories vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ... on 6 October, 1983

In the case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and others [(1984) 1 SCC 1], the Standing Orders regarding, providing for punishment, should be strictly construed. This being the findings, the learned counsel for the second respondent-employee reiterated that the writ 19/34 http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.27428 of 2019 petitioner-Management has not followed the Standing Orders and therefore the actions are to be declared as untenable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 263 - D A Desai - Full Document

M/S. Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co vs Shri Ram Prabesh Singh & Ors on 23 January, 1963

“12. The position that emerges from the above quoted decisions of this Court may be stated thus: In proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is confined to the enquiry as to (i) whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing 28/34 http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.27428 of 2019 Orders and principles of natural justice has been held; (ii) whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out; (iii) whether the employer had come to a bona fide conclusion that the employee was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice and was not intended to victimise the employee regard being had to the position settled by the decisions of this Court in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. v. Ram Prabesh Singh [AIR 1964 SC 486 : (1964) 1 SCR 709 : (1963) 1 LLJ 291 : 24 FJR 406] , Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Kumar [(1961) 1 LLJ 511 : (1960-61) 19 FJR 15] , Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen [AIR 1965 SC 917 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 128 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 9 November, 1964

“12. The position that emerges from the above quoted decisions of this Court may be stated thus: In proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is confined to the enquiry as to (i) whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing 28/34 http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.27428 of 2019 Orders and principles of natural justice has been held; (ii) whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out; (iii) whether the employer had come to a bona fide conclusion that the employee was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice and was not intended to victimise the employee regard being had to the position settled by the decisions of this Court in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. v. Ram Prabesh Singh [AIR 1964 SC 486 : (1964) 1 SCR 709 : (1963) 1 LLJ 291 : 24 FJR 406] , Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Kumar [(1961) 1 LLJ 511 : (1960-61) 19 FJR 15] , Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen [AIR 1965 SC 917 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 160 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next