Back
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
Kisan Sehkari Chini Mills Limited – Appellant
Versus
Hari Dutt Joshi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The employer/petitioner, herein, has put a challenge to the judgment / award dated 7th October, 2010, as it has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Adjudication Case No. 175 of 2008 (Old Case No. 6 of 2006), as it was published on 26th November, 2009.
3. The question, which was referred to be decided by virtue of the G.O. No. 624-29/Haldwani CP64(K)/2005 dated 6th February, 2006, was to the following effect :-
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh gjhnRr tks'kh iq= Jh :nze.kh tks'kh] odZesV flfoy] dh lsok;sa fnukad 31&01&1998 ds vkns'k }kjk lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr gS \ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ RkFkk vU; fdl&fdl fooj.k lfgr\**
4. In a nutshell, the reference which was made to be adjudicated by the Labour Court, while exercising its powers under 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, was as to whether, the act of the employer of dismissing the services of the workman w.e.f. 31st January, 1998, was just and proper or not ?
5. To summarize the basic issues, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned award is, that
The employer must provide credible and material evidence to support charges and adhere to the principle of natural justice.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
The management must seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and conte....
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 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....
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.
An employer must conduct a fair and proper disciplinary inquiry to justify dismissal; failure to do so renders the dismissal unjustified.
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
