1

SHAHUL HAMEED

Vs

NARAYANA PILLAI

2001(I) LLJ 959 [HC-KER-DB]

1

2

3

COURT ORDERED POLICE PROTECTION TO THE EMPLOYER

POLICE REMAINED AS SPECTATORS OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT

WHAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE COURT ORDER AND DOES THE ACTION OF POLICE AMOUT TO CONTEMT OF THE COURT'S  ORDER ?

1

2

3

4

THE POLICE CANNOT REMAIN SILENT SPECTATORS

IT WAS NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE COURT ORDER THAT POLICE SHOULD GO TO THE SPOT AND ARREST THE CULPRITS AFTER THE EVENT IS OVER

THEY SHOULD ACT AT THE INITIAL STAGE ITSELF AND PREVENT LOSS BEING CAUSED TO FACTORY PROPERTY

NO CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER PASSED BUT POLICE CAUTIONED TO BE VIGILANT

2

SHAMBHU MURALI  SINHA 

Vs

PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPN. OF  INDIA AND ANOTHER

2000 (3) LLN 513  [SC]

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 

Vs

WING COMMANDER  T. PARTHASARATHY

2001 (1)LLN 16  [SC]

1

2

3

AN EMPLOYEE APPLIED FOR VRS ON 18.10.95 AND IT WAS ACCEPTED ON 30.07.97.  HE WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN EMPLOYMENT EVEN AFTER 30.07.1977 AND HE WAS RELIEVED ON 26.09.97

HE WITHDREW HIS VRS APPLICATION AFTER 30.07.97 BUT BEFORE 26.09.97.

CAN THE MANAGEMENT INSIST THAT HE MUST

 GO ?

1

2

AN EMPLOYEE CAN WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION LETTER/VRS APPLICA-TION EVEN AFTER ITS ACCEPTANCE  BUT ANY TIME BEFORE IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE, THAT IS BEFORE HE IS RELIEVED.

BASED ON EARLIER SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS IN :

BALARAM GUPTA  

Vs

 UNION OF INDIA [1987 (2) LLN 906] AND POWER FINANCE CORPORATION Vs PRAMODKUMAR [1997 (2) LLN 5]

c) J.N.SRIVASTAVA Vs UNION OF INDIA [1998 (5) LLN (Supp)]

3

RHONE POULENCE (I) LTD 

Vs

STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS

2000 (87) FLR 505 [SC]

1

2

3

AN EMPLOYEE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH A TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED BY HIS REGIONAL MANAGER ON THE GROUND THAT REGIONAL MANAGER WAS NOT COMPETENT TO ISSUE THE ORDER.

LATER THE CORPORATE MANAGER (THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY) WROTE TO HIM TO JOIN DUTY AT THE NEW PLACE

WILL THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE FIRST ORDER AMOUNT TO MISCONDUCT AND WILL THE SUBSEQUENT LETTER BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY RESTORE THE VALIDITY OF THE INITIAL ORDER ISSUED BY A NON-COMPETENT AUTHORITY ?

1

2

3

ONLY COMPETENT AUTHO-RITIES CAN ISSUE TRANSFER ORDERS

SUBSEQUENT RATIFI-CATION WILL NOT VALI-DATE THE SAME WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT

NON-COMPLIANCE WILL NOT AMOUNT TO A MISCONDUCT

4

THE MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 

Vs

V RAVEENDRAN, SECRETARY, RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

FLR 2001 (88) 391 [HC-KER]

1

2

CAN A FULL DAYS WAGE BE DEDUCTED IF EMPLOYEES STRIKE OR DISRUPT WORK FOR PART OF THE DAY ?

EVEN WHEN THE SERVICE RULES ARE SILENT CAN THE MANAGEMENT DEDUCT WAGES FOR CONCERTED ABSENCE FROM DUTY (STRIKE).

1

2

IT IS NOT ONLY PERMI-SSIBLE TO DEDUCT WAGES FOR THE HOURS NOT WORKED BUT ALSO PERMISSIBLE TO DEDUCT WAGES FOR THE WHOLE DAY, ESPECIALLY IF THE ABSENCE/ABSTINENCE FROM DUTY IS CONCERTED AND THE SAME FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE WORKMEN DISCHARGED THEIR DUTY IN PART, BUT WHETHER THEY FAILED TO DO THEIR DUTY FOR ANY PART OF THE DAY

IN THIS CASE MANAGE-MENT RULES HAD ALSO WARNED THAT PARTIAL STRIKE WILL ENTAIL LOSS OF PAY FOR THE FULL DAY.

MANAGEMENT'S REFUSAL TO PAY FOR THE PARTIALLY WORKED HOURS APPROVED BY COURT.