SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Management of Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Amarwa Devi W/o Late R. B. Bhuiyan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 07.09.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 5556 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the award answering the reference dated 06.10.1998 holding the order of dismissal of the workman to unjustified, has been upheld.
2. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.10.2018 directed to issue notice upon the respondents, who are legal heirs of deceased-workman, both under ordinary process and registered post. The notice was returned un-served with the endorsement ‘addressee left’. Accordingly, vide order dated 03.12.2018 fifteen days’ time was granted for substituted service. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 28.01.2019 directed that apart from Newspaper publication, let service be effected following the mode prescribed under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to order dated 28.01.2019 though newspaper publication of the notice was made, which was brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, but the co-ordinate Bench took note of the fact that since the notice was published in daily newspaper ‘
Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram
Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Management of Panitole Tea Estate vs. Workmens
Managing Director ECIL, Hydrabad vs. B. Karunakar
Nagendra Nath Bora vs. Commr. of Hills Division
Pepsico India Holding Private Limited vs. Krishna Kant Pandey
Sawarn Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others
State Bank of India vs. R.K. Jain
Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others
The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management and Others
The court upheld the dismissal of the employee for attempted theft, confirming the fairness of the domestic inquiry and the appropriateness of the punishment despite claims of procedural irregulariti....
The Labour Court must first determine the validity of domestic enquiry before evaluating evidence presented for dismissal in industrial disputes.
Labour Courts must refrain from re-evaluating evidence after confirming the fairness of a disciplinary inquiry; interference is only permissible when findings are perverse or lack evidence.
Point of Law : Satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or oth....
The Labour Court must evaluate the validity of a domestic enquiry before considering the merits of a dismissal case, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and the proper application of ....
Discipline and misconduct at the workplace justify dismissal; judicial review cannot re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact from disciplinary bodies.
The court established that a fair domestic enquiry and proportional punishment for habitual unauthorized absence from duty are essential under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the burden o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.