SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Kar) 461

MANAGING DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
SHIVAYANANAMATH – Respondent


MAJAGE, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant/corporation, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court and order of the learned Single Judge in W P No 5978/1999 in not interfering with that award

( 2 ) WITH consent of both sides, taken for final hearing and heard It is submitted for the appellant/ Corporation that the Tribunal has wrongly held charge as not proved even though, by the documents produced and marked in the case, proved the charge and the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate the same and consequently, interference is required On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/workman supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge Perused the records carefully

( 3 ) FACTS, which gave rise to the present appeal, are: The respondent, while working as conductor under the appellant, was subjected to domestic enquiry on the charge of not issuing tickets to 6 passengers despite collection of fare from them on 21 8 1992 On proof of the same, he was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority So, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which held charge as not proved and set aside the order of dismissal


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top