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

2006 Supreme(Guj) 234

D.A.MEHTA
SURAT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD – Appellant
Versus
DINYAR ERACH NALLADARU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.G.CHAUHAN

( 1 ) THIS petition, though styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is in effect a petition under article 227 of the Constitution. The petition challenges the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2003 made by the industrial Court in Appeal (I. C.) No. 30 of 2000 whereunder award dated 22nd September, 2000 made by the Labour Court, surat in T. Application No. 399 of 1988 came to be confirmed.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as a clerk on 6th July, 1970 by the petitioner " bank. According to the petitioner-bank, the respondent had been negligent in discharging his duties and was insubordinate to his superiors in the hierarchy of the petitioner - bank, and therefore, vide charge-sheet dated 31st July, 1987 domestic inquiry was initiated against the respondent - workman. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 21st March, 1988 finding the respondent guilty of the charges leveled against him. Thereupon, considering the gravity and the seriousness of the charges which stood proved, a show cause notice dated 9th May, 1988 was issued by the petitioner-bank calling upon the respondent to explain why his services sho


























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