Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 16 August, 1971
6. On the other hand, the Tribunal and more so, the learned Single Judge gave no importance to the statement of passengers found recorded in printed pro forma since, according to them, such a statement, not being a substantive evidence, was not of any help to the Corporation and referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Limited v. The Workmen and Ors., , Central Bank of India Limited v. Prakash Chand Jain, and extracted the observations made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of that judgment and also referred to earlier judgments in Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, , State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, and Kesoram Cotton Mills Limited v. Gangadhar and Ors., .
Central Bank Of India Ltd., New Delhi vs Shri Prakash Chand Jain on 20 August, 1968
6. On the other hand, the Tribunal and more so, the learned Single Judge gave no importance to the statement of passengers found recorded in printed pro forma since, according to them, such a statement, not being a substantive evidence, was not of any help to the Corporation and referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Limited v. The Workmen and Ors., , Central Bank of India Limited v. Prakash Chand Jain, and extracted the observations made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of that judgment and also referred to earlier judgments in Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, , State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, and Kesoram Cotton Mills Limited v. Gangadhar and Ors., .
The Lord Krishna Textile Mills vs Its Workmen on 12 December, 1960
6. On the other hand, the Tribunal and more so, the learned Single Judge gave no importance to the statement of passengers found recorded in printed pro forma since, according to them, such a statement, not being a substantive evidence, was not of any help to the Corporation and referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Limited v. The Workmen and Ors., , Central Bank of India Limited v. Prakash Chand Jain, and extracted the observations made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of that judgment and also referred to earlier judgments in Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, , State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, and Kesoram Cotton Mills Limited v. Gangadhar and Ors., .
State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963
8. That apart, the decision in the case of Rattan Singh, supra, is a later decision of three Judges' Bench whereas the decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge were rendered by 2 Judges' Bench, except the one in K. Manche Gowda's case, supra, in which the point involved was issuing second show-cause notice, etc.
M/S. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd vs Gangadhar And Others on 3 April, 1963
6. On the other hand, the Tribunal and more so, the learned Single Judge gave no importance to the statement of passengers found recorded in printed pro forma since, according to them, such a statement, not being a substantive evidence, was not of any help to the Corporation and referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Limited v. The Workmen and Ors., , Central Bank of India Limited v. Prakash Chand Jain, and extracted the observations made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of that judgment and also referred to earlier judgments in Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, , State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, and Kesoram Cotton Mills Limited v. Gangadhar and Ors., .
The North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs S.S. Poleshi on 17 July, 2000
(emphasis supplied)
However, it appears that the said decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. So, merely because cash or cash bag of the respondent was not checked by the checking officials or, that statement of passengers was not recorded by the Corporation, that could not have been taken to hold that the charge against the respondent was not proved.
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977
Not only that, in the case of Rattan Singh, supra, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a conductor of public transport only, which was not so in the cases referred to by the learned Single Judge. Further, in the case on hand, the
record of domestic enquiry, which was held as fair and proper, were under consideration by the learned Single Judge, which also could not have been ignored besides the fact that the respondent did not contend that statement of passengers was recorded not in his presence i.e., in his absence. So, the decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge could not have been of any such assistance to hold that the statement of passengers recorded in a printed pro forma cannot be looked into/considered, So, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge that a printed pro forma statement cannot be looked into even though domestic enquiry was held as fair and proper.
Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central ... vs The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara ... on 21 September, 2000
In fact, in the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited) and Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Ors., the Supreme Court has held that "Once an act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employee in service".
Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999
19. Not only that, there is a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that when serious charge of misconduct is held proved, the only appropriate punishment is dismissal of workman from service and nothing
less than that. If need be, reference can be had to the decisions in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, , Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Ors., , Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohanlal Gupta, 2001 AIR SCW 2330, B.S. Hullikatti's case, supra, Union of India and Ors. v Narain Singh, , Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, and latest one in Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Etawah v. Hotilal and Anr., 2003 AIR SCW 801.