Back
M. S. RAMESH
S. D. R. Pandian – Appellant
Versus
Presiding officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Award in I.D.No.827 of 2001 dated 06.08.2012 passed by the first respondent holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and that the dismissal was justified and declining to grant him any relief quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits with award costs.)
1. The charge against the petitioner, who was employed as a Driver in the second respondent/Corporation is that, on 06.11.1996 an accident took place owing to his negligence and the victim died on the spot. During the course of inquiry, oral and documentary evidences were let in before the Inquiry Officer and based on the proven charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service through an order dated 10.06.1997. The appeal against the dismissal order was also rejected.
2. Before the Labour Court, when the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter re
The reliance on additional evidence and cross-examination to establish misconduct must be in accordance with legal propositions.
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 ....
Stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer.
The Labour Court must establish substantial proof of charges against a workman before upholding dismissal, considering both the evidence and proportionality of penalties.
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....
An employer's right to lead evidence before a Labour Court following an invalid domestic enquiry is not automatic. It must be explicitly requested at an early stage, such as in the written statement.....
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.
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
