Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.30 seconds)The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990
27. In the present case, before passing the order of dismissal for the act
of alleged misconduct by the workman-appellant, the respondent should have
issued a show cause notice to the appellant, calling upon him to show cause
as to why the order of dismissal should not be passed against him. The
appellant being an employee of the respondent was dismissed without
conducting an enquiry against him and not ensuring compliance with the
principles of natural justice. The second show cause notice giving an
opportunity to show cause to the proposed punishment before passing the
order of termination was also not given to the appellant-workman by the
respondent which is mandatory in law as per the decisions of this Court in
the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan[7] and Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, v. Karunakar[8].
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
27. In the present case, before passing the order of dismissal for the act
of alleged misconduct by the workman-appellant, the respondent should have
issued a show cause notice to the appellant, calling upon him to show cause
as to why the order of dismissal should not be passed against him. The
appellant being an employee of the respondent was dismissed without
conducting an enquiry against him and not ensuring compliance with the
principles of natural justice. The second show cause notice giving an
opportunity to show cause to the proposed punishment before passing the
order of termination was also not given to the appellant-workman by the
respondent which is mandatory in law as per the decisions of this Court in
the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan[7] and Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, v. Karunakar[8].
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
30. The appellant workman is a conductor in the respondent-statutory body
which is an undertaking under the State Government of Haryana thus it is a
potential employment. Therefore, his services could not have been dispensed
with by passing an order of termination on the alleged ground of
unauthorised absence without considering the leave at his credit and
further examining whether he is entitled for either leave without wages or
extraordinary leave. Therefore, the order of termination passed is against
the fundamental rights guaranteed to the workman under Articles 14, 16, 19
and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the statutory rights
conferred upon him under the Act as well as against the law laid down by
this Court in the cases referred to supra. This important aspect of the
case has not been considered by the courts below. Therefore, the impugned
award of the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court are
liable to be set aside.