| |
REFERENCE |
|
ISSUE RAISED |
|
HELD |
| 1 |
RAVISHANKAR R
VS
MANAGEMENT
OF GE POWER CONTROLS
LTD
2004(2) LLJ 611
(HC-MAD) SB
|
1 |
WILL HOLDING OF
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY
DURING LOCK OUT
PERIOD
WITHOUT PAYING
SUBSISTENCE
ALLOWANCE AMOUNT
TO VIOLATION OF
PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE
|
1
2 |
IT WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
IT WOULD ALSO AMOUNT TO AN UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE AS CONTEMPLATED IN ENTRY (f) OF THE 5th SCHEDULE
OF ID ACT
|
| 2 |
DELHI TRANSPORT CORP
VS
SARDAR SINGH 2004(3)
LLJ 543(SC)
OR
2004(102)
FLR 1031(SC)
|
1
2
3
4
5 |
WORKMAN REMAINING
ABSENT IN DIFFERENT
SPELLS WITHOUT APPLYING
IN ADVANCE FOR LEAVE
COMPANY MARKED SUCH SPELLS AS”LEAVE WITHOUT PAY”
SERVICES TERMINATED FOR MISCONDUCT OF UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE
HC HELD SINCE COMPANY GRANTED LEAVE WITHUT
PAY ABSENCE CANNOT BE
TREATED AS MISCONDUCT
COMPANY CHALLENGED
THIS IN SUPREME COURT
|
1
2
3 |
MARKING OF ABSENCE AS “LEAVE WITHOUT PAY”WILL NOT LEGITIMISE THE ABSENCE
EMPLOYEE NOT HAVING APPLIED FOR LEAVE IN ADVANCE AS REQUIRED IN STANDING ORDER WOULD MAKE SUCH ABSENCE MISCONDUCT
DISMISSAL UPHEALD
(SEE ALSO MADRAS HC CASE ON SIMILAR LINES IN PURATCHI TALAIVAR TRANSPORT COPRORATION
[2004 LLR 138]) |
| 3 |
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
VS
T SRINIVAS 2004(102)
FLR 1045[SC]
|
1
2
3 |
CAN DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AND CRIMINAL TRIAL PERTAINING TO THE SAME INCIDENT
[ACCEPTING BRIBE OR ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION ]PROCEED SIMULTANEOUSLY
MUST HIGH COURT GRANT STAY IF APPROACHED BY THE ACCUSED
ACCUSED WANTED STAY ON THE GROUNDS HIS DEFENCE WOULD GET EXPOSED
|
1
2
3
4 |
THE GENERAL RULE IS BOTH CAN GO ON SIMULTANEOUSLY
COURTS SHOULD NOT STAY PROCEEDINGS IN A ROUTINE MANNER
COURTS SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND GIVE A SPEAKING ORDERFOR STAYING PROCEDINGS
AS THE STANDARD OF PROOF, PROCEDURE FOR TRIAL IN BOTH CASES ARE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT IN NORMAL COURSE THERE SHOULD BE NO BAR.
SEE EARLIER SC CASES IN [1996(74) FLR2550 (SC)] AND CAPT PAUL ANTONY
VS BHARAT GOLD MINES
(1999(82) FLR 627(SC)]
|
| 4 |
MANAGEMENT OF KRISHNAKALI ESTATE
VS
AKHIL BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH
2004(103)
FLR 273[SC]
|
1
2
3
4
5 |
AN EMPLOYE INDULGED IN VIOLENCE
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND DOMESTIC ENQUIRY INITIATED
CRIMINAL TRIAL ENDED IN ACQUITTAL
MANAGEMENT LEAD EVEIDENCE BEFORE LABOUR COURT TO ESTABLISH MISCONDUCT AND JUSTIFY DISMISSAL
UNION CONTENDED THAT AFTER CRIMINAL COURT ACQUITTING HIM, THE LABOUR COURT CANNOT HOLD HIM GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT
|
1
2
3 |
THE SCOPE AND PROCEDURE OF DOMESTIC ENQUIRY AND CRIMINAL TRIAL ARE DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT
IF PROPER PROOF FOR COMMISSION OF MISCONDUCT IS PUT UP, LABOUR COURT NOT BOUND TO GO BY DECISION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL
LABOUR COURT CAN GIVE AN INDEPENDENT DECISION UPHOLDING THE DISMISSAL
|
| 5 |
CHOLAN ROADWAYS LTD
VS
G THIRU
GANASAMBANDAM
[2005(104)
FLR 440-SC]
|
1 |
IS THE EVIDENCE AND EXTENT OF PROOF REQUIRED IN A DOMESTIC ENQUIRY TO MEET THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED UNDER EVIDENCE ACT? |
1
2
3 |
PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE ACT HAVE NO APPLICATION TO DOMESTIC ENQUIRY
WHIL THE EVIDENCE ACT REQUIRES PRODUCTION OF “PROOF BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT”, DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REQUIRES ONLY”PERPONDERENCE OF PROBABILITY”
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REQUIRES ONLY COMPLIANCE WITH “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE”
NOTE SIMILAR JUDGEMENT ALSO IN DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC VS A.T MANE
2004(3)
LLJ 1074 SC
|
