Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs State Of Raj & Ors on 8 May, 2017 cites

Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 1986

He also relies on judgment reported in AIR 1986 SC 995: Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and (2013) 6 515: Anant R.Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.Education Society to buttress his submissions regarding framing charges and enquiry report was not supplied. The petitioner also relies on judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Anrs. Vs. Ram Nivas Bansal (dead) through Lrs. : (2014) 12 SCC 106 with regard to quantum of punishment being wholly disproportionate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 198 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013

He also relies on judgment reported in AIR 1986 SC 995: Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and (2013) 6 515: Anant R.Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.Education Society to buttress his submissions regarding framing charges and enquiry report was not supplied. The petitioner also relies on judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Anrs. Vs. Ram Nivas Bansal (dead) through Lrs. : (2014) 12 SCC 106 with regard to quantum of punishment being wholly disproportionate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 262 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Mgmt. Of Sundaram Industries Ltd vs Sundaram Industries Employee Union on 13 December, 2013

Learned Counsel also relies upon (2014) 2 SCC 600: Management of Sundaram Industrial Ltd. Vs. Sundaram Industries Employees Union. It is submitted that minimum requirement of the rule of law is that evidence should be placed before the Court or the Tribunal or the authority to prove the charges and the same cannot be on basis of surmises and conjectures. Although probabilities can be many, there has to be a preponderance of probabilities to hold the person guilty of the charge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

(8) Having considered the submissions, I find that the labour Court while passing the order dated 14.03.2000, has rightly held the enquiry to be fair and justified. The copy of the enquiry report has been offered to the petitioner who did not deliberately take the same. Even otherwise the order passed by the labour Court regarding non-supply of enquiry report having caused no prejudice to the workman employee is justified. The purpose of supplying enuqiry report has been highlighted by the Constitutional Bench in the case of ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727. It has been clearly held that if no prejudice has been caused or is found to have been caused, non-supply of enquiry report could not vitiate the enquiry. Admittedly, the labour Court has directed that before examining the case of the petitioner on merits relating to punishment, copy of enquiry report would be made available to him and the workman claimant would be entitled to raise issues relating to enquiry report before the labour Court at the time of final adjudication. (9) At the time of final adjudication, on 23.11.2002 the labour Court has discussed all the three aspects of the matter and (9 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] also enquiry report and has reached to the finding that all the three charges stand wholly proved against the workman employee. In the circumstances considering the nature of charges, I find that punishment does not shock the conscience of the Court nor it can be said that the punishment does not commensurate with the charges levelled against him. The award therefore with regard to direction of reinstatement merely because of the 10 years of service rendered by the workman cannot be allowed to be sustained and is apparently is on basis of misplaced sympathy. It is settled law that misplaced sympathy cannot be a source of adjudication once the employee workman has been found to be guilty of wrong reporting, misuse of post as well as drawing amount unfairly. The punishment cannot be said to be excessive and the order passed by the labour Court therefore cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document
1