Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.25 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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 Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But in principle we see no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under Section 33 or on a reference under Section 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 and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.
The Punjab National Bank, Ltd vs Its Workmen on 24 September, 1959
S.C.R. 836], Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen and Punjab National Bank Limited v. Its Workmen. There three cases were further considered by this court in Bharat Sugar Mills Limited.
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
Para 10: In Workmen of Fire Stone Tyre Rubber Company v. Management [1973(1)LLJ 78] it was inter alia held as follows:
Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975
25. The Supreme Court in M/s Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others [1976 (1) SCC 518] held that in case of charge of victimisation, it must be properly and adequately pleaded and proved as it is a serious charge made against the Management. The following passages found in paragraphs 10 and 11 and a portion of paragraph 12 may be usefully extracted:-
Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005
In this context, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka [2006 (1) SCC 430] in which all the previous decisions of the Supreme Court were referred to with approval. The following passages found in paragraphs 19 to 25 may be usefully extracted:-
Management Of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 10 September, 2004
Para 21: In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh1 this Court held: (SCC pp. 212-13, para 29)
29. This leaves us to consider whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workmen concerned dehors the allegation of extortion is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against them. From the evidence proved, we find the workmen concerned entered the Estate armed with deadly weapons with a view to gherao the manager and others, in that process they caused damage to the property of the Estate and wrongfully confined the manager and others from 8.30 p.m. on 12th of October to 3 a.m. on the next day. These charges, in our opinion, are grave enough to attract the punishment of dismissal even without the aid of the allegation of extortion.