|
CASHEW
DEVELOPMENT CORP
Vs.
labour
court, kollam [1999(i) llj
1031 (hc-ker-db)]
|
can
a labour court after holding
that the enquiry was proper
reappraise the evidence and
reconsider the adequacy of the
punishment ?
can
review process under section
11a of id act be used by a
workman for punishments other
than dismissal or discharge ?
|
if
labour court has found the
enquiry fair and proper, in
the
absence of any
allegations of victimisation
or unfair labour practice, the
labour court has no power to
interfere with the punishment
imposed. section 11a of the id
act can be used only in
punishments involving
dismissal or discharge and not
for other punishments.
|
|
neeta
kaplish
Vs.
presiding
officer [1999(i) llj 275
sc-db]
|
as
per section 11A OF THE ID ACT,
LABOUR COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
CAN REVIEW DISMISSAL AND
DISCHARGE CASES AND ORDER
LESSER PUNISHMENTS AFTER
RELYING ON THE ‘MATERIALS
ON RECORD’.
AS
PER THE PROCEDURE, IF THE
COURTS FIND THE DISCIPLINARY
PROCEDURE IS NOT FAIR OR IS
IMPROPER, IT GIVES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO THE EMPLOYER
AND THE WORKMAN TO LEAD FRESH
EVIDENCE IF ANY.
IN
THIS CASE, MANAGEMENT DECLINED
TO LEAD FRESH EVIDENCE AND
THEREFORE, WORKMAN ALSO DID
NOT LEAD ANY FRESH EVIDENCE.
COURT
HELD THAT THERE WAS “NO
MATERIAL ON RECORD” and
ordered reinstatement.
is this
action in order?
|
once
the original enquiry
proceedings are held improper,
if the management does not
lead fresh evidence, the
courts are at liberty to treat
it as there being no ‘material
on record’
to sustain management action
and it can ignore the earlier
records.
if
management does not lead fresh
evidence, the worker is under
no obligation to lead fresh
evidence
|
|
BHAGIRATHI
JENA
VS
BOARD
OF DIRECTORS 0.S.F.C (1999
(82) FLR 143 sC - DB)
|
CAN
A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
COMMENCED BEFORE RETIREMENT OF
AN EMPLOYEE BE CONTINUED AFTER
HIS RETIREMENT ? cAN HIS
RETIREMENT BENEFITS BE
WITHHELD OR CURTAILED IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES OR PF BENEFITS
WITHHELD ?
|
uNLESS
THERE IS A SPECFIC PROVISION
IN THE SERVICE
RULES ENABLING SUCH
CONTINUATION , NO DISCIPLINARY
ACTION CAN BE PROLONGED BEYOND
LAST DAY OF THE EMPLOYEE
PF
RULES
DO NOT PERMIT SUCH
WITHHOLDING OR CURTAILING.
|
|
bHARAT
PERTOLEUM
VS
mAHARASHTRA
KAMGA UNION (1999 (81)
FLR 358 SC-DB)
&
CIPLA
LTD
VS
RIPU
DAMAN BHANOT (1999 (82) FLR
225 SC-DB)
|
hAS
A DELINQUENT EMPLOYEE THE
RIGHT TO DEMAND REPRESENTATION
BY AN ADVOCATE. WOULD REFUSAL
TO GRANT HIS REQUEST AMOUNT TO
VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE.
|
tHE
WHOLE CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT
WAS REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME
COURT IN THE BHARAT PETROLEUM
CASE ,
AND THE APEX COURT HAS
CLARIFIED THAT WHEN THE RULES
PERMIT ONLY A CO-WORKMAN THERE
IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO
PERMIT AN ADVOCATE IN A
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY.
|
