REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM COOP BANK

Vs

JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVES

2001(I) LLJ 1537 [HC-KER-DB]OR

2001 (3) LLN 231[HC-KER-DB]

1

UNDER SECTION 69 &2(1) OF KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETYS ACT HAVE REGISTRARS OF COOPERATIVES THE POWERS TO DIRECT THE BANK NOT TO PROCEED WITH DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEE?

1

2

UNDER SECTION 69 READ WITH 2(1) REGISTRAR EMPOWERED TO GIVE DIRECTIONS ONLY ON MATTERS TOUCHING THE BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ESTABLISHMENT OR MANAGEMENT OF THE SOCIETY.

THE DISCIPLINARY MATTERS WOULDNOT COME UNDER THE SCOPE OF SECTION2(1),HENCE REGISTRAR NOT EMPOWERED TO INTERFERE IN DISCIPLINARY MATTERS.

2

SBI

Vs

ARVIND SHUKLA

2001 (I) FLR849 [SC-DB]

1

 

 


2

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DISAGREED WITH FINDING OF ENQUIRY OFFICER AND GAVE ANOTHER FINDING AND DISMISSED THE EMPLOYEE.

IS DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT BEFORE GIVING A  FRESH FINDING OF GUILT?

1

NON-FURNISHING OF REASONS FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER WOULD MAKE THE WHOLE  ACTION DEFECTIVE AND BE FATAL

3

JAGDISH GURSAHANI VS AIR INDIA LTD

2001(3)LLN 534 [HC-BOM-SB]

1

CAN INCOME TAX BE DEDUCTED FROM THE SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE PAYABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE UNDER SUSPENSION PENDING ENQUIRY OR AFTER FILING AN APPROVAL PETITION UNDER 33(2)(b)OF ID ACT?

1

SINCE SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SALARY

UNDER SECTION 17(1) READ WITH SECTION 17(3) (II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THE EMPLOYER IS OBLIGATED TO DEDUCT INCOME TAX FROM THE SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE PAYABLE.

4

GM(P)CANARA BANK Vs RAJA RAO

2001-II-LLJ 819 [SC-DB]

1

2

IS IT NECESSARY FOR THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO GIVE REASONS FOR AGREEING WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER?

THE FINAL ORDER HAD MENTIONED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIONOTHER RELEVANT FACTORS.IN SUCH CASES MUST NOTICE BE GIVEN ABOUT CONSIDERATION OF OTHER FACTORS?

1

2

3

IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO GIVE REASONS WHEN IT AGREED WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.

THE MERE USE OF THE PHRASE OTHER RELEVANT FACTOSWOUOLD NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE THAT OTHER MATERIALS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED.

HOWEVER, IF OTHER MATERIAL HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CHARGE SHEETED EMPLOYEE.

5

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

Vs

MANSOOR ALIKHAN

[2001(91)FLR 28-SC]

1

CAN A DISCIPLINARY ACTION ORDER ISSUED BY MANAGEMENT BE SET ASIDE MERELY BECAUSE THE WORKMAN HAS ESTABLISHED VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

1

   
2

3.

MERELY BECAUSE OF ESTABLISHMENTOF VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE A DISCIPLINARY ORDER CAN NOT BE SET ASIDE.

IN ADDITION TO VIOLATION, THE EMPLOYEE ALLEGING VIOLATION SHOULD ESTABLISH THAT THIS HAS CAUSED HIM SOMEOTHER REAL PREJUDICE.

SUCH PREJUDICE MUST BE OTHER THAN THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

[SEE SIMILAR SC RULINGS IN: KL TRIPATHI VS SBI

1984 (48) FLR 38 SB OF PATIALA VS SK SHARMA 1996 (3) SCC 364 IN THIS CASE THE SC HAS EXPLAINED AS TO WHAT WOULD AMOUNT TO PREJUDICE

6

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

2001 II LLJ 1417 SC

1

2

3

4

THE CONDUCT RULES PERMITTED A CHARGE SHEETED OFFICER TO AVAIL THE SERVICES OF A COLLEAGUE AS A DEFENSE ASSISTANT.

BANK MODIFIED THE RULES BY WHICH AN EMPLOYEE ALREADY ACTING AS A DEFENSE ASSISTANT IN 2 PENDING ENQUIRIES COULD NOT TAKE UP DEFENSE FOR A THIRD EMPLOYEE.

THE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION CHALLENGED THIS RESTRICTION

IS SUCH RESTRICTION JUSTIFIED.?

1

2

3

   

A

B

C

D

EMPLOYEES FACING ENQUIRIES DO NOT HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION BY ANY EMPLOYEE.

REASONABLE RESTRICTION CAN BE PUT ON THE RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION

PRESENT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN ORDER

[OTHER CASES REFERED]

BPCL Vs MAHARSHTR KAMGAR UNION [199 I LLJ 352 SC]

CRESCENT DYES Vs TRIPATHI [1993 I LLJ 907 SC]

KALINDI Vs TATA LOCO [1960 II LLJ 228 SC]

DUNLOP RUBBER Vs THEIR WORKMEN [1964 II LLN 426 SC]

7

KANHAIYALAL AGARWAL

Vs

FACTORY MANAGER GWALIOR SUGARS

[2001 (II) LLJ 1239 SC]OR 2001 (4) SCT 428]

1

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE CAN A COURT SUSTAIN THE MANAGEMENTS ACTION OF TERMINATION OF AN EMPLOYEES SERVICE ONGROUNDS OF LOSS OF CONFIDENCE?

1

   
A

B

C

TO  SUSTAIN  SUCH  AN ACTION  MANAGEMENT MUST PLEAD  AND P ROVE ALL  THE  THREE  FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

THE  WORKMAN  WAS HOLDING A POSITION OF CONFIDENCE

BY CAUSING SUCH POSITION HE HAS COMMITTED ACTS WHICH RESULTS IN FORFEITING THAT TRUST.

TO  CONTINUE  HIM  IN SERVICE WOULD BE EMBARRASSING AND INCONVENIENT TO THE EMPLOYER OR WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DISCIPLINE OR SECURITY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.

8

MUNICIPAL BOARD

AMROHA

Vs

UP PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL

[2001 JJ LLJ 1221 SC]

1

WILL NON PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE IPSO FACTO MAKE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION UNSUSTAINABLE?

1

2

ANALYSING SEVERAL SC RULINGS ON THE SUBJECT HELD:

THOUGH NON-PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATIONOF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT BY ITSELF WILLNOT MAKE THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER BAD.

ONLY IF THE WORKER PROVES THATNON-RECEIPT OF THE S..A.HAS CAUSED HIM HARDSHIP OR PREJUDICE WILL THE COURTS BE INCLINED TO GRANT ANY RELIEF.

CASES REFERED.

1994 I LLJ 1094 SC

1996 II LLJ 296 SC

1994 AIR SC 1558 SC

1986 II LLJ 124 SC

1983 II LLJ 256 SC

1973 II LLJ 414 SC

9

PHILIPOSE Vs

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

[2002 I LLJ 147 HC KER SB]

2001 (4) LLN 560

1