Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.31 seconds)
M/S.Mumbai Cricket Association vs Pramod G. Shinde on 24 January, 2011 cites

Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973

12 On the other hand, Mr.Pathak appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order. He submits that in such cases the enquiry before the Court into the same charges and to prove identical misconduct must be equated with a domestic enquiry or else serious prejudice will be caused to the workman. The experience is that the employers prolong the proceedings after it is held that the domestic enquiry was not fair, just and proper or the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The de novo enquiry before the Court is not held and completed expeditiously. The employee has no control over the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:47:28 ::: WP2606-10 11 judicial proceedings. They may drag on for decades together. In these circumstances, it will be difficult for the employee to sustain himself and particularly when he is facing a long legal battle. Therefore, in equity and in law the claim for subsistence allowance could have been made and granted. Drawing support from section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 Labour and Industrial Cases 1004 (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd etc Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & Ors) and a judgment of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court reported in 2001 (2) Labour Law Notes 345 (Management of Auro Food Ltd, Auroville And Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore & Anr), it is submitted by Mr.Pathak that Mr.Bukhari's arguments overlook the fact that the law does not contemplate a de novo enquiry in Court to prove the misconduct but such an opportunity is afforded by virtue of judicial pronouncements and particularly by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1973 Labour and Industrial Cases 851 = AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1227 (Workmen of M/s./Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:47:28 ::: WP2606-10 12 of India Pvt Ltd Vs. The Management & Ors). If the Industrial Disputes Act does not contemplate a de novo enquiry and the right is claimed by virtue of the judicial pronouncements, then, such pronouncements not prohibiting the grant of the subsistence allowance in equity and the situation being on par with a suspension pending domestic enquiry instituted by the employer, the workman in this case was entitled to apply for and equally the Labour Court was empowered to grant subsistence allowance. There is nothing shocking in the order of the Industrial Court as it is based on equity, fairness and justice. There is no protection for the poor employee who is forced to go to a Court of law for redressal of his grievance arising out of his wrongful dismissal and it is not expected that such protracted litigation can be conducted by him without any financial assistance. If financial assistance is granted in such deserving cases, then, the order need not be interfered with in this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary. If by exercise of such jurisdiction a just order is interfered with, then, the very object and purpose of writ jurisdiction ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:47:28 ::: WP2606-10 13 will be defeated. For all these reasons if the order of the Labour Court can be sustained otherwise, then, this Court should sustain and uphold it and dismiss this writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 654 - Full Document

Phulbari Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 6 May, 1959

It is true that three of these cases except Phulbari Tea Estate's case were on applications under S.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:47:28 ::: WP2606-10 23 principle we see no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper. Phulbari Tea Estate's was on a reference under S.10, and the same principle was applied there also, the only difference being that in that case, there was an enquiry though it was defective. A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:47:28 ::: WP2606-10 24 and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 83 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1   2 3 Next