Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)
Between The vs The on 5 December, 2022 cites

The Punjab National Bank, Ltd vs Its Workmen on 24 September, 1959

This view was fortified by a catena of decisions where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has infact been held as required by the relevant standing orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. Reference in this regard was made to The Punjab National Bank Ltd Vs. Its Workmen (1960)1 S.C.R.806, Management of Ritz Theatre(P) Ltd Vs. Its Workmen(1963) 3 S.C.R.461, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 S.C.R. 588, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 180, State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain and Ors.(1972) 1 S.C.R 755, Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India(P) Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors.(1973) 3 S.C.R.587 and Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P P Mundhe (1976) 1 S.C R 361.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 138 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Management Of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd vs Its Workmen on 27 July, 1962

This view was fortified by a catena of decisions where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has infact been held as required by the relevant standing orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. Reference in this regard was made to The Punjab National Bank Ltd Vs. Its Workmen (1960)1 S.C.R.806, Management of Ritz Theatre(P) Ltd Vs. Its Workmen(1963) 3 S.C.R.461, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 S.C.R. 588, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 180, State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain and Ors.(1972) 1 S.C.R 755, Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India(P) Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors.(1973) 3 S.C.R.587 and Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P P Mundhe (1976) 1 S.C R 361.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 82 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Workmen Of Motipur Sugar Factory ... vs Motipur Sugar Factory on 30 March, 1965

This view was fortified by a catena of decisions where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has infact been held as required by the relevant standing orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. Reference in this regard was made to The Punjab National Bank Ltd Vs. Its Workmen (1960)1 S.C.R.806, Management of Ritz Theatre(P) Ltd Vs. Its Workmen(1963) 3 S.C.R.461, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 S.C.R. 588, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 180, State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain and Ors.(1972) 1 S.C.R 755, Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India(P) Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors.(1973) 3 S.C.R.587 and Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P P Mundhe (1976) 1 S.C R 361.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 210 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh on 11 January, 1972

This view was fortified by a catena of decisions where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has infact been held as required by the relevant standing orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. Reference in this regard was made to The Punjab National Bank Ltd Vs. Its Workmen (1960)1 S.C.R.806, Management of Ritz Theatre(P) Ltd Vs. Its Workmen(1963) 3 S.C.R.461, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 S.C.R. 588, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 180, State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain and Ors.(1972) 1 S.C.R 755, Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India(P) Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors.(1973) 3 S.C.R.587 and Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P P Mundhe (1976) 1 S.C R 361.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 338 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

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

This view was fortified by a catena of decisions where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has infact been held as required by the relevant standing orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. Reference in this regard was made to The Punjab National Bank Ltd Vs. Its Workmen (1960)1 S.C.R.806, Management of Ritz Theatre(P) Ltd Vs. Its Workmen(1963) 3 S.C.R.461, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 S.C.R. 588, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 180, State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain and Ors.(1972) 1 S.C.R 755, Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India(P) Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors.(1973) 3 S.C.R.587 and Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P P Mundhe (1976) 1 S.C R 361.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 654 - Full Document

Cooper Engineering Limited vs Shri P. P. Mundhe on 20 August, 1975

This view was fortified by a catena of decisions where it has been consistently held that no distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid or defective and those where no enquiry has infact been held as required by the relevant standing orders and in either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it. Reference in this regard was made to The Punjab National Bank Ltd Vs. Its Workmen (1960)1 S.C.R.806, Management of Ritz Theatre(P) Ltd Vs. Its Workmen(1963) 3 S.C.R.461, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 S.C.R. 588, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 180, State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain and Ors.(1972) 1 S.C.R 755, Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India(P) Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors.(1973) 3 S.C.R.587 and Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P P Mundhe (1976) 1 S.C R 361.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 371 - P K Goswami - Full Document

D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993

In Santa Cement Works & Anr Vs. Bachchan Lal Srivastava & Ors, 1997 II CLR 67 also reference was made to D.K.Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries,1993 (67) FLR 111(SC) wherein it was held that although the recent trend is to insist on giving an opportunity of hearing, despite any provision in the Standing Orders, however, even if no enquiry was held before termination of services, the employer can lead evidence before the Tribunal to justify its action. In view of the same, even if before terminating the services of the workman, no enquiry was held, the termination order cannot be held to be illegal on that ground alone as the management availed the opportunity of leading evidence before the Labour Court and adduced evidence justifying its action taken against the workman."
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 597 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next