Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Strawboard Manufacturing Co vs Gobind on 6 March, 1962
In the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind reported in 1962 Vol I LLJ 420, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that approval should be obtained before dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that the word "simultaneously" must of course be taken reasonably and a motion of split-second timing should not be imported. It should be done at once and without delay. In the present case, the Authority had categorically held that 40 days delay was unexplained and therefore, it the time gap is too large.
Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs Md. Noor Alam on 27 April, 1973
In the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation Vs. Md.Noor Alam reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1404, the Supreme Court held that a day's delay cannot be said to be material consequence so long as it was clear that the employer had meant to do all the three things as part of one and the same transaction.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. case Krishna Iyer, J. sought to make a distinction between an approval which is required to be made under Section 33 of the Act and a reference under Section 10 thereof stating: (SCC pp. 649-50, para 152)
152. Kalyani was cited to support the view of relation-back of the award to the date of the employer's termination orders. We do not agree that the ratio of Kalyani corroborates the proposition propounded. Jurisprudentially, approval is not creative but confirmatory and therefore relates back. A void dismissal is just void and does not exist. If the Tribunal, for the first time, passes an order recording a finding of misconduct and thus breathes life into the dead shell of the Management's order, predating of the nativity does not arise. The reference to Sasa Musa in Kalyani enlightens this position.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs Ramachandra Bhimayya Polkam on 15 October, 1959
We may now refer to certain cases which have been relied upon by either side. The main case on which learned counsel for the respondents relies is Premier Automobiles Limited Vs. Ramachandra Bhimayya Polkam and another (1960-I LLJ 443). In that case, the Bombay High Court held that the application should be made before the action has been taken by the employer and that it was not correct to infer from the use of the word "approval" in the proviso that the legislature intended that such an application should be made after the action had been taken. The High Court has pointed out that there is apparent conflict between the first and last part of the proviso and the view it took was with the object of harmonizing the two parts.
Indian Extractions (Private) Ltd. vs Vyas (A.V.) And Anr. on 29 August, 1960
This view has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in Indian Extractions (Private) Limited Vs. A.V.Vyas, Conciliation Officer (AIR (1961) Guj.22) though with some hesitation. With respect we feel that it is not necessary to read the words "action taken" in the proviso as equal to "action proposed to be taken" as the Bombay High Court has done and that the apparent conflict between the two parts of the proviso can be harmonized, as we have indicated above, leaving it open to the employer to dismiss or discharge the employee and at the same time pay him the necessary wages and make an application to the authority concerned for approval of the action taken.