Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
The Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. B. Pai, Advocate, M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellant; M/s. P. Govinda Menon, M. S. K. Iyengar and M. R. K. Pillai, Advocates, for Respondent No.1
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. :
This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, directing the appellant, the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., to reinstate its workman K. K. Raghavan whom it had dismissed with effect from the 14th of November 1955. The appellant is a public limited concern engaged in the industry of soaps and toilet articles. It owns three factories in addition to 12 sales offices.One of these factories is located at Tatapuram, Ernakulam, in the State of Kerala. Mr. Raghavan was working with the appellant at its factory at Tatapuram. It was reported to the appellant that on the 12th November, 1955. Mr. Raghavan and another employee of the appellant, Mr. Mathews by name, waylaid Mr. C. A. Augustine, the Chargeman of the Soap Plant of the company s factory at Tatapuram while he was returning home after his duty in the second shift and assaulted him. That is why charge-sheets were issued against both Messrs. Raghavan and Mathews on the 14th November, 1955. Pursuant to the service of the charge-sheets, two officers were appointed by the appellant to hold an enquiry; but the respondent Union represented to the appellant that justice would not be done to Raghavan and Mathews unless somebody outside Tatapuram was invited to hold the enquiry. Thereupon, the General Manager of the appellant appointed Mr. Y. D. Joshi, who is a Law Officer of the appellant it the Head Office, to hold the enquiry. Mr. Joshi held the enquiry from the 27th to 30th December, 1955, and subsequently, he made his report to the General manager of the appellant on the 7th January, l956. At that time, an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees, and so, the appellant applied to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the dismissal of Messrs. Raghavan and Mathews. The Tribunal approved of the dismissal of Raghavan, but did not accord its approval of the dismissal of Mathews. Acting in pursuance of the approval accorded by the Tribunal, the appellant dismissed Raghavan with effect from 14th November, 1955. Not satisfied with the order of dismissal, the respondent raised an industrial dispute in regard to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal of Raghavan and that has become the subject-matter of the present reference which was ordered on the 3rd of December, 1958. It is on this reference that the Industrial Tribunal has held that the appellant was not justified in dismissing Raghavan, and so, has ordered his reinstatement. This is the order which has given rise to the present appeal by special leave.
2. The first point which calls for our decision in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the facts proved against Raghavan did not attract the provisions of standing Order 22 (vii) of the Certified standing Orders of the appellant. The said standing order provides that without prejudice to the general meaning of the term "misconduct", it shall be deemed to mean and including, inter alia, drunkenness, fighting, riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour within or without the factory. It is common ground that the alleged assault took place outside the factory, and, in fact, at a considerable distance from it. The Tribunal has held that the assault in question can be treated as a purely private matter between .Raghavan and Augustine with which the appellant was not concerned and as a result of which standing Order 22 (viii) cannot be invoked against Raghavan. Mr. Menon who has appeared for the respondent before us, has contended that in construing standing orders of this character, we must take care, to see that disputes of a purely private or individual type are not brought within their scope. He argues that on many occasions, individual employees may have to deal with private disputes, and sometimes, as a result of these private disputes, assault may be committed. Such an assault may attract the relevant provisions of
No cases in the provided list are explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The sources consistently treat the principal cases—particularly Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 155) and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan (AIR 1960 SC 806)—as binding precedents that have been followed, distinguished, or relied upon by subsequent courts. There is no textual evidence in the list of any case being categorized as bad law. Therefore, this section is empty based on the available material.
Following is a categorization of the cases based on their judicial treatment asindicated in the source material, grouping them by the primary treatment pattern observed.
The overwhelming majority of citations in the source material treat the leading cases as precedents that have been followed, approved, or relied upon by later courts. This is the dominant judicial treatment pattern in the list. Specific examples include: "As held by the Supreme Court in Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd v. ... Therefore, in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v." TOSHNIWAL BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS BIR SINGH - 1972 0 Supreme(Del) 206 "This was followed by Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. ... (AIR 1960 SC 806) and Tata Oil Mills (AIR 1965 SC 155) is also not an invariable ..." IDEAL JAWA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS C. MADAN MOHAN - 1971 0 Supreme(Kar) 223 "The said decision was Followed On by the Apex Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. ... In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. ... The Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 wherein the same the principles were reiterated." VINOD KUMAR VS GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 598 "Similar view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Tata Oil Mills' Co. Ltd. v. ... And Tata Oil Mills is not also an invariable rule." RAMVIR SINGH TOKAS (ASI/CLK) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2010 0 Supreme(All) 2344 "Reference was also made to Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. ... In this connection, we may also refer to Western India Match Company Ltd. v. ... Lastly we may refer to Workmen of Lakheri Cement Works Ltd. v." Glaxo Laboratories India LTD. VS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut - 1983 0 Supreme(SC) 325 "Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. ..." Raj Kumar @ Raju S/o Shri Bhagirathji VS State of Rajasthan through the Secretary - 2016 0 Supreme(Raj) 1478 "Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Limited v. ..." Rattan Pal VS Punjab Gramin Bank - 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 1877 "In support of his contention, he has referred us to the decision in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. ..." LOMDHAR TANTI VS MANAGER, MURMURIA TEA ESTATE - 1974 0 Supreme(Gau) 40 "Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai (5) and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. ..." Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd VS B. D. Harsha - 1977 0 Supreme(Raj) 87 "The matter again came up before the Supreme Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. v. ... 'As held in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. ... Ltd. v." P. K. Rajappan Pillai VS State of Kerala - 1972 0 Supreme(Mad) 633 "Similar observations were made by their Lordships in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. ... No doubt in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. ... The Workmen AIR 1965 SC 155." Administrator, Municipal Corporation VS Rafique Ahmad - 1974 0 Supreme(MP) 118 "In (7) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. ... In Glaxo's case, the Supreme Court referred to (11) Tata Oil Mill's case (1965 SC 155), where the term Misconduct provided '... a workmen may commit.'" Probodh Kumar Bhowmick VS University of Calcutta - 1994 0 Supreme(Cal) 318 "it further referred to Tata Oil Mills'case, AIR 1965 SC 155 (supra), wherein the Supreme Court followed ... Jindal Strips Ltd. , reported in 1994 (6) SCC 19 and Tata Cellulor v. ... (P) Ltd. v." COAL MINES OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS UNION OF INDIA - 1995 0 Supreme(Cal) 89 Cited cases in this treatment category include: Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 155) Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1964-II LLJ 113) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan (AIR 1960 SC 806) Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari (AIR 1969 SC 30) Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (AIR 1988 SC 2118) Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (AIR 1999 SC 1016) Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Workmen Workmen of Lakheri Cement Works Ltd. v. Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Glaxo Laboratories (F) Ltd. v. Jindal Strips Ltd. v. Tata Cellulor v. B.K. Meena v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Chairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. K. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. State of Tamilnadu and Another (JT 1996 (8) SC 447) Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 1344) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen & Anr. (AIR 1972 SC 1975) The Binny Ltd. v. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Association of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others (1988) 4 SCC 319 Nelson Motis v. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala, AIR 1955 SC 258 Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Soyl Mills Mazdoor Union, AIR 1953 SC 241 Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusheshwar Dube v. M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. Kushal Bhan (AIR 1960 SC 806 / 1960-I-LLJ-520 / (1960) 3 SCR 227)
A significant treatment pattern observed throughout the source material is the explicit judicial statement that the legal principle established in a case is "not an invariable rule." This represents a form of distinguishing—acknowledging the precedent while limiting its scope or application. Key examples include: "In Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v. ... The ground indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is not also an invariable rule." State Of Rajasthan VS B. K. Meenaand - 1996 7 Supreme 432 "A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 806) and Tata Oil Mills (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 155) is not also an invariable rule." Sitaram Choudhary VS State Of Bihar - 2002 0 Supreme(Pat) 784 "Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. ... Iranian/L'The ground indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is also not an invariable rule." ABHAI RAJ SINGH VS BANK OF BARODA - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 117 "The ground indicated in Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. and general Mills Ltd. ... (supra) and Tata Mills (supra) is not also an invariable rule." ABHAI RAJ SINGH VS BANK OF BARODA - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 117 "The ground indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is not also an invariable rule, it is only a factor which will go into the scales." VINOD KUMAR VS GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 598 "In Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. ... This was followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Oil Mills Co, Ltd. v. As Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v." VIRENDRA AMERIA VS REGIONAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT - 2009 0 Supreme(All) 3820 "As this Court has held in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. ... The first decision of Hon'ble Apex Court on the question in issue was rendered in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v." VIRENDRA AMERIA VS REGIONAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT - 2009 0 Supreme(All) 3820 "In Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v. ... Its Workmen (by Tata Oil Mills Workers' Union, Ernakulam, and another), the Supreme Court had held that if an employer proceeds ... TT...is not an invariable rule." Management of W. S. Insulator of India Limited, Porur, Madras-16 VS Mohamed Moosa and another - 1978 0 Supreme(Mad) 241 This treatment pattern is consistently applied to: Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan (AIR 1960 SC 806) Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 155 / 1964-II LLJ 113) Sections 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (as discussed in Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. S.N. Sinha and related cases)
These cases appear in the source material in contexts where it is unclear whether they were followed, distinguished, or otherwise treated. The text references them as having been considered, but the explicit judicial treatment is ambiguous. Examples include: "The right of a charged officer to produce witnesses and the duties of the enquiry officer in that behalf was considered in (2) Tata" Bhagawan Mishra VS Union of India - 2002 0 Supreme(Cal) 384 "The right of a charged officer to produce witnesses and the duties of the enquiry officer in that behalf was considered in Tata" BHAGAWAN MISHRA VS UNION OF INDIA - 2002 0 Supreme(Cal) 390 "Scope of Section 33(2)(b) has been discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. -vs-S. N. ... Their Workmen, (1965) 2 SCR 83: AIR 1965 SC 917; Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company" (, ) "In Tata Oil Mills V/s. ... In Tata Oil Mills Co. s case, (supra) the Supreme Court was considering a case where a workman assaulted another workman outside ... Ltd. V/s." I. E. L. Limited VS P. O. , Labour Court - 1991 0 Supreme(Pat) 297 "Oil Mills (Tata Oil Mills Co. ... (Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. Vs. ... Ltd. Vs." (, ) Ambiguously treated cases in this group include: Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. S.N. Sinha (AIR 1965 SC 917 / (1965) 2 SCR 83) Workmen of Messyrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P.) Ltd. v. Various unnamed cases referenced in summary fashion The following case(s) could not be clearly categorized based on the available source material: 1. **Khardah and Co. v. its workmen (1963-II L.L.)**: Referenced only in passing alongside Phulbari Tea Estate and Tata Oil Mills. No judicial treatment (followed, distinguished, overruled, etc.) is described for this case in the source material. Source: SARGUJA RAIGARH MOTOR KARMACHARI SANGH VS SARGUJA RAIGARH ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD BY - 1965 0 Supreme(MP) 83: "Khardah and Co. v. its workmen 1963-II L. L. ... some rational connexion with the employment of the assailant and the victim is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata" 2. **Oil Mills Company, Ltd. v. its workmen (1964-II L.)**: Appears in early references without explicit treatment language. While it appears connected to the Tata Oil Mills line of cases, the specific judicial treatment of this case itself is not made clear. Source: SARGUJA RAIGARH MOTOR KARMACHARI SANGH VS SARGUJA RAIGARH ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD BY - 1965 0 Supreme(MP) 83: "Oil Mills Company, Ltd. v. its workmen 1964-II L. ... J. 388" 3. **Soyl Mills Mazdoor Union, AIR 1953 SC 241**: Cited as a precedent without any description of how it has been treated subsequently. Source: IDEAL JAWA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS C. MADAN MOHAN - 1971 0 Supreme(Kar) 223: "Soyl Mills Mazdoor Union, AIR. 1953 SC. 241. Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. ... Rukmaji Bala, AIR 1955 SC. 258. and Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v." 4. **Automobile Products of India Ltd. v.** and **Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v.**: Similarly cited without treatment indicators. Source: IDEAL JAWA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS C. MADAN MOHAN - 1971 0 Supreme(Kar) 223: "Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. ... Rukmaji Bala, AIR 1955 SC. 258. and Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v." 5. **Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Prasad (1969 (2) LLJ 799)**: Referenced in context of other authorities but without explicit treatment indication. Source: Padmanabhan VS Kerala State Handloom Devlp. Corpn. Ltd. - 1992 0 Supreme(Ker) 155: "Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Prasad, 1969 (2) LLJ 799." 6. **Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. (1953 Lab.)**: Referenced without treatment language. Source: LOMDHAR TANTI VS MANAGER, MURMURIA TEA ESTATE - 1974 0 Supreme(Gau) 40: "Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. 1953 Lab." 7. **Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.**: Referenced in connection with discussions of Section 33(2)(b) scope but without clear treatment language indicating whether it was followed or distinguished. Source: Management of Rourkela Steel Plant VS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 640: "Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd." 8. **Workmen of Messyrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P.) Ltd. v.**: Referenced in connection with scope of Section 33(2)(b) without explicit treatment indication. Source: : "Workmen of Messyrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P.) Ltd. v. ... Company Ltd."
**Source :** SARGUJA RAIGARH MOTOR KARMACHARI SANGH VS SARGUJA RAIGARH ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD BY - Madhya Pradesh The New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd. (M/s.) Kanpur v. Rohini Kumar - Allahabad Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited VS Raj Kishore Prasad - Patna Factory Manager of the Model Mills, Nagpur vs Wasudeo - Bombay Tata Engineering And Locomotive Company LTD. VS S. C. Prasad - Supreme Court C. KUNJUKUTTY VS WORKMEN OF THE MALABAR ROADWAY SERVICE - Kerala WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN ENNORE FOUNDRIES LTD. VS MANAGER OF ENNORE FOUNDRIES LTD. - Madras ANGLO-AMERICAN DIRECT TEA TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS LABOUR COURT - Madras IDEAL JAWA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS C. MADAN MOHAN - Karnataka State Bank Of India VS R. K. Jain - Supreme Court TOSHNIWAL BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS BIR SINGH - Delhi P. K. Rajappan Pillai VS State of Kerala - Madras LOMDHAR TANTI VS MANAGER, MURMURIA TEA ESTATE - Gauhati Administrator, Municipal Corporation VS Rafique Ahmad - Madhya Pradesh Ruston And Hornsby India LTD. VS T. B. Kadam - Supreme Court Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd VS B. D. Harsha - Rajasthan Lalla Ram VS D. C. M. Chemical Works LTD. - Supreme Court Management of W. S. Insulator of India Limited, Porur, Madras-16 VS Mohamed Moosa and another - Madras Jagdish Prasad Khatri VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan Shambhu Nath Goyal VS Bank Of Baroda - Supreme Court Glaxo Laboratories India LTD. VS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut - Supreme Court Mohd. Suleman VS Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, H. , Q. O. , Kothi, Hyderabad - Madras N. Marimuthu VS Secretary to Government Transport Department, Madras - Madras Kusheshwar Dubey VS Bharat Coking Coal LTD. - Supreme Court APEEJAY PVT. LTD. VS RAGHAVACHARI NARASINGHAM - Calcutta BEMCO HYDRAULICS LIMITED VS DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER, BELGAUM - Karnataka SUKH DEV BHARAJ VS NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. - Himachal Pradesh Laxmi Shankar Pandey VS Union Of India - Supreme Court I. E. L. Limited VS P. O. , Labour Court - Patna Ghanshyam Lal VS The State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan Padmanabhan VS Kerala State Handloom Devlp. Corpn. Ltd. - Kerala Bikram Purti VS Union Of India - Patna Probodh Kumar Bhowmick VS University of Calcutta - Calcutta COAL MINES OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS UNION OF INDIA - Calcutta Manohar Singh Neech VS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Patna APEEJAY PRIVATE LIMITED VS RAGHAVACHARI NARASINHAN - Calcutta RAM KR. TEWARI VS ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER (CCR), BANK OF BARODA - Calcutta State Of Rajasthan VS B. K. Meenaand - Supreme Court State Of Bihar VS Ram Lakhan Singh - Patna Prasanna Kumar Agarwal VS State of Bank of India - Gauhati Udumbanchola Estate Workers Union VS Indian Cardamom Research Institute - Kerala M. Paul Anthony VS Bharat Gold Mines LTD. - Supreme Court HARINDER JIT SINGH WALIA VS STATE OF DELHI - Delhi RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad VIKRAMA SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - Allahabad NATIONAL IRON AND STEEL COMPANY (1984) LTD VS AJIT KUMAR MUKHERJEE - Calcutta M. Vincent Paul, Salem VS The Chief Educational Officer, Salem and others - Madras BHASKAR MONDAL VS UCO BANK - Calcutta Vijay Kumar Ekka VS State Of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh VINOD KUMAR VS GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI - Delhi M. P. SHARMA VS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE - Madhya Pradesh Bhagawan Mishra VS Union of India - Calcutta BHAGAWAN MISHRA VS UNION OF INDIA - Calcutta Sitaram Choudhary VS State Of Bihar - Patna Ram Nazar Dubey VS Managing Director/Disciplinary Authority, U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. - Allahabad Ajay Kumar Prasad VS Bihar State Electricity Board - Patna ALBERT DAVIT LIMITED VS ANURADHA CHOUDHURY - Calcutta UNION OF INDIA VS MONORANJAN MONDAL ALIAS M. R. MONDAL - Calcutta ABHAI RAJ SINGH VS BANK OF BARODA - Allahabad Constable - 2051 C. P. Jagannath Prasad Sharma, son of Late Bhawani Shanker VS State of U. P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), The Senior Superintendent - Allahabad Kailash Chandra, Khacheru Giri VS State of U. P. - Allahabad KAILASH CHANDRA II VS STATE OF U P - Allahabad Hakumat Rai VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Rajasthan Ashok Kumar Srivastava S. P. Srivastava VS U. P. Public Services Tribunal, State of U. P. through Secretary to Government, - Allahabad RAMA SHANKAR KUSHWAHA VS BANK OF BARODA - Allahabad SWAPAN KUMAR MAITY VS THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY - Calcutta ASHOK KUMAR KAHAR VS MPSEB - Madhya Pradesh SURAJ PRAKASH VS JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, KOTA - Rajasthan Suraj Prakash VS Judge, Labour Court, Kota - Rajasthan Rattan Pal VS Punjab Gramin Bank - Punjab and Haryana INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ANNA SALAI VS P. GANESAN - Supreme Court PRASANNA KUMAR RATHA VS DISTRICT JUDGE - Orissa UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS RABINDRA BEHERA - Orissa Rajpal Singh VS State Of Punjab And Others - Punjab and Haryana Ex. Constable Suba Singh VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana VIRENDRA AMERIA VS REGIONAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT - Allahabad RAMVIR SINGH TOKAS (ASI/CLK) VS UNION OF INDIA - Allahabad Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Manohar Nath Pandita - Consumer TALLURI SRINIVAS VS THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA THROUGH: ITS SECRETARY - Delhi P. V. Sharma VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat Netrang Vibhag Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. VS Chandrakant Vithalbhai Mistry - Gujarat Subramani Gopalakrishnan VS Institute of Chartered Accountants of India - Delhi The Divisional Controller, KSRTC VS M. G. Vittal Rao - Supreme Court Divisional Controller (The), KSRTC VS M. G. Vittal Rao - Rajasthan K. Rama Krishna Raju VS Govt. of A. P. rep. by its Pro. Secretary, Revenue (Vig. IV(2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh P. Chinnadurai VS Inspector General of Registration - Madras P. Chinnadurai VS Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - Madras Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. O. P. Gupta, (IFS:1972) VS Union of India - Delhi Jayalakshmi VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras A. X. Edwin VS State Bank of Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh K. Rengarajan VS Indian Overseas Bank - Madras Pravinchandra Thakarlal Jadav VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat Management of Rourkela Steel Plant VS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela - Orissa Raj Kumar @ Raju S/o Shri Bhagirathji VS State of Rajasthan through the Secretary - Rajasthan Jitendra Kumar Misra VS Union of India - Calcutta UNION OF INDIA VS ASHOK KUMAR VERMA - Allahabad Zuari Industries Limited VS Roque Glenito Furtado - Bombay Sima Sarkar VS Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Calcutta Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay N. Shankar Prasad VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh Gian Chand Thakur VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh Shubham Thakur VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh Ch. Vinay VS High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati - Andhra Pradesh Dorairaj Spintex VS R Chittibabu - Supreme Court Hindustan Aeronautics Limited VS C. Raghunathan - Karnataka Kommik Kadu VS State of A. P. - Gauhati Sachin Subhash Bhosale VS Union of India, thorough Secretary - Bombay West Bengal State Electricity Board VS Third Industrial Tribunal - Calcutta Ratan Plantations vs Malanadu Plantation Employees Union - Kerala Anand Kumar vs Union of India - Allahabad Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company LTD. VS Kushal Bhan - Supreme Court Phulbari Tea Estate VS Its Workmen - Supreme Court
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found 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
