Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
GAURANG KANTH
Birmati – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and background of the petition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments presented by petitioner and respondent (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. court's analysis on legal principles and jurisdiction (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. final judgment and order of the court (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The present Writ Petition emanates from the judgment dated 16.10.1999 ("Impugned judgment"), passed by the learned Presiding Officer Shri B.B. Chaudhary, Industrial Tribunal II: Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in O.P No. 104/1993 titled as Delhi Transport Corporation Indraprastha Estate Vs. Sh. Ajeet Singh represented by Smt. Birmati and sons and daughters. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act") and as a result confirmed the decision taken by respondent No.2 for removal of the deceased husband of the Petitioner, Sh. Ajeet Singh, from service. The petitioner vide the present petition is inter alia praying to set aside the impugned judgment and the deceased husban
The court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) is limited to assessing victimization, not the detailed legality of a domestic inquiry.
The court's decision was based on the finding that the termination was not with an intention to victimize the workman, and the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry were not adjudicat....
Rejection of an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deems that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed, entitling the employee to reinst....
An employee's admission of guilt can be the foundation of the rights of the parties, and the Industrial Tribunal erred in not considering the employee's admission of guilt and the payment of one mont....
The court emphasized the distinct nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
