REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

APSRTC
VS
NARSAGOUD
2003(96) FLR 582 [SC

1  

2




3




4

AN EMPLOYEE CHALLENGED HIS DISMISSAL FOR UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE


LABOUR COURT DIRECTED REINSTATEMENT WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE BUT WITHOUT BACKWAGES

MANAGEMENT REINSTATED HIM WITHOUT INCREMENT FOR THE PERIOD HE REMAINED DISMISSED TILL REINSTATEMENT

IS THE EMPLOYEE ELIGIBLE FOR INCREMENTS DURING THE BREAK IN SERVICE PERIOD ?

1

2  





3

THERE IS A DISTINCTION TO BE MADE BETWEEN A SIMPLE DIRECTION FOR CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND A DIRECTION ACCOMPANIED BY A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT EMPLOYEE SHALL BE ENTITLED FOR ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS 

UNLESS THE REINSTATEMENT ORDER HAS A SPECIFIC STIPULATION FOR CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS NO INCREMENTS NEED BE GIVEN FOR THE PERIOD INTERVENING DISMISSAL AND REINSTATEMENT

THE BREAK PERIOD WILL NEED TO BE COUNTED ONLY FOR SENIORITY AND PENSIONERY BENEFITS

2

MAHBAL AMIN

VS

VIJAYA BANK

2003(1) LLJ 394 [HC-

KAR-DB]

1

 

 
2


3

BANK EMPLOYEE WHO CAUSED PECUNIARY LOSS TO BANK ISSUED PUNISHMENT OF REDUCTION IN PAY SCALE BY FOUR STAGES

IN ADDITION ORDERED RECOVERY OF LOSS FROM SALARY

DOES THIS AMOUNT TO DOUBLE PUNISHMENT

1

RECOVERY OF LOSS IS NOT A PUNISHMENT AND HENCE THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE PUNISHMENT WOULD NOT ARISE

3

CHAIRMAN 7 M.D.
UNITEDCOM.BANK

VS

P.C.KANKAR

2003(96) FLR 1067
 [SC]

[SEE ALSO UPSRTC CASE IN 2003(96) 1076 (SC)]

1

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN HIGH COURTS ISSUE ORDERS REDUCING THE PUNISHMENTS AWARDED BY DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES ?

1  



2

3






4

HIGH COURTS SHOULD NOT ROUTINELY INTERFERE WITH DISCIPLINARY ORDERS

IT CAN INTERFERE ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PUNISHMENT AWARDED IS SHOCKINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE OR SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT

MERE EXPRESSION BY THE JUDGE THAT THE PUNISHMENT IS SHOCKINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW

THE COURT MUST GIVE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION

4

AKARAM
CHUKEKAR

VS

DALAL PROJECT
SERVICES PVT LTD

2003(102) FJR 123
 [HC]

2001-II-LLJ 819 [SC-DB]

1

2

3

A GROUP OF WORKMEN INDULGED IN GO-SLOW

MANAGEMENT WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE WORKMEN COLLECTIVELY INDULGED IN GO-SLOW AND TOOK DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ALL OF THEM


SOME WORKMEN CHALLENGED THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE WITNESSES HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC PROOF OF THEIR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION

1

2

3

IN PROVING MISCONDUCTS OF   SUCH NATURE THE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE WOULD NOT COME INTO PLAY

IF WITNESSES HAVE NARATED THAT ALL WORKMEN IN THE GROUP HAD COLLECTIVE INTENTION ANY WORKMEN WHO WAS PART OF THAT GROUP CAN ESCAPE PUNISHMENTS ONLY IF HE SHOWS PROOF THAT HE WAS ONLY A SILENT SPECTATOR OR AN ONLOOKED AND HAD NO INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GROUPS, COMMON MISBEHAVIOUR

THE ONUS IS THUS SHIFTED TO THE EMPLOYEE WHO WANTS TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF GROUPS UNRULY BEHAVIOUR TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE

5

STATE OF UP

VS

CHANDRAPAL SINGH

2003(97) FLR 602 (SC)

1  






2

CAN DISCIPLINARY ACTION BE INITIATED [ISSUE OF CHARGE SHEET] BY AN AUTHORITY LOWER IN RANK THAN THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY [PUNISHING AUTHORITY]?

DOES ARTICLE 311(1) DEALING WITH DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IMPLIED BAN INITIATION OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY A SUBORDINATE OFFICER THAN DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ?

1

   
2

NOTHING IN ARTICLE 311 STANDS IN THE WAY OF AN OFFICER SUBORDINATE TO THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY INITIATING THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION

HOWEVER, IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE SERVICE RULES BANNING INITIATION BY A SUBORDINATE OFFICER THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT

6

RAJASTHAN ROAD 
CORPN

VS

DHARAMVEER
SINGH
2003(2) LLN 738
 [HC-RAJ-SB]

1

2

 
3

MISCONDUCT PROVED IN DOMESTIC ENQUIRY

LABOUR COURT AFTER HOLDING ENQUIRY WAS IN ORDER DIRECTED REINSTATEMENT ON GROUNDS THAT SUBSITENCE ALLOWANCE WAS NOT PAID DURING ENQUIRY PERIOD

EMPLOYER CHALLENGED THIS

1

2

3

RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT CAN BE GRANTED ONLY IF MISCONDUCT WAS NOT PROVED OR ENQUIRY PROCEDURE WAS FPUND TO BE FAULTY

IN THIS CASE THE COURT HAD UPHELD THE ENQUIRY PROCEDURE AND HENCE NO SCOPE FOR REINSTATEMENT

 ORDERED PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE AMOUNT

7

SANDVIK ASIA LTD

VS

MARUTI JAGDALE
2002(94) FLR1086

[HC-BOM-SB]

1  






2





3

COMPANIES STANDING ORDERS HAD RESTRICTIONS ABOUT WHO THE EMPLOYEE CAN BRING TO ASSIST HIM IN THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY 

NO MENTION ABOUT WHO CAN BE APPOINTED AS MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE OR PRESENTING OFFICER

IN THIS ABSENCE OF ANY EXPRESS PROVISION CAN MANAGEMENT APPOINT AN OUTSIDER AS PRESENTING OFFICER ?

1

EVEN THOUGHT IT IS A DOMESTIC ENQUIRY AND WORKMEN RESTRICTED FROM BRING OUTSIDER, IF THERE IS NO PROVISION REGULATING APPOINTMENT OF PRESENTING OFFICER IN STANDING ORDERS OR SERVICE RULES MANAGEMENT CAN APPOINT AN OUTSIDER AS PRESENTING OFFICER

8

RADHESHYAM KHICHROLIA

VS

MP STATE CO-OP MARKETING FEDERATION

2003(96) FLR 699 [HC-MP-SB]

1  


2

3



4

CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BEFORE SUPERANNUATION

DISCIPLINARY PROCESS COMPLETED AND TERMINATION ORDER ISSUED AFTER SUPERANNUATION DATE

RECOVERY MADE FROM GRATUITY FOR LOSS/MISAPPROPRIATION

IS TERMINATION AFTER SUPERANNUATION LEGALLY MAINTAINABLE ?

  1

2  





3

AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN BHAGIRATHI JENA CASE [199(82) FLR 143] NO DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY CAN BE CONTINUED AFTER SUPERANNUATION UNLESS THE SERVICE RULES SPECIFRICALLY ALLOWS SUCH CONTINUANCE

SINCE IN THIS CASE SERVICE RULES DID NOT PROVED SO, THERE CANNOT BE ANY TERMINATION OF SERVICE AFTER SUPERANNUATION

SINCE THERE WAS NO LEGAL TERMINATION ORDER RECOVERY FROM GRATUITY UNDER SECTION 4(6) OF GRATUITY ACT DOES NOT ARISE