Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)

Cheran Transport Corpn. Ltd., ... vs P.O., Labour Court, Coimbatore And ... on 29 September, 1997

4. Today the learned Counsel for the petitioner after referring to the findings recorded by the Labour Court brought to the notice of this Court two judgments. The first one is reported in 2000 (2) LLJ 902 (Anna Transport Corporation Ltd., v. P.O., Labour Court). In that judgment this Court held that there cannot be any limitation on the powers of the labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not powerless to interfere with such conclusion if there is perversity. In that same judgment which deals with the case of accident this Court held that even in the absence of any other eye-witness, the theory of `res ipso loquitur' can be applied and the Court can find out as to who was responsible for the accident and the negligence of the driver can also be ascertained. Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the driver who drove the vehicle negligently was set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Depot Manager, A.P. Srtc vs A.M. Goud (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. on 6 December, 2000

7. In so far as the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was concerned there was no eye witness and only the sketch of the area was filed and taken note of. However, in the Criminal Court, P.W.4-P.T.Thomas was an eye witness and after accepting his evidence in the Criminal Revision this Court gave a categoric finding that the second respondent had not driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. On that basis (though the said judgment had come subsequently)yet in the interest of justice we cannot ignore the material fact in favour of the second respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - S R Babu - Full Document
1