REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

DEIHI TRANSPOKT CORPORATION Appellant

V/S

DELHI ADMINISTRATION Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ALLINSON V. GENERAL COUNCIL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION [REFERRED]
THE KING V. NAT BELL LIQUORS LTD. [REFERRED]
QUEEN V. COMMISSIONERS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX [REFERRED]
TANDUR AND NAVANDGI STONE QUARRIES (P) LTD. V. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED]
LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON [REFERRED]
NAKKUDA ALI V. JAYARATNE [REFERRED]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. SREE RAMA RAO [REFERRED]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. C P SARATHY [REFERRED]
LILA VATI BAI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED]
NEWSPAPERS LIMITED VS. STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL U P [REFERRED]
NAGENDRA NATH BORA LIKHIRAM COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS ASSAM RAFIULLAH KHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS ASSAM:BHANURAM PAGU:BHANURAM PEGU:AMULYA PRASAD CHALIHA [REFERRED]
GOPAL NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
SYED YAKOOB VS. K S RADHAKRISHNAN [REFERRED]
BARIUM CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. COMPANY LAW BOARD [REFERRED]
RAJA ANAND BRAHMA SHAH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SARDAR D K JADAV [REFERRED]
PARRY AND CO LIMITED VS. P C PAL JUDGE OF THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA [REFERRED]
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES VS. S D AGARWAL [REFERRED]
A K KRAIPAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RAMPUR DISTILLERY CO LIMITED VS. COMPANY LAW BOARD [REFERRED]
MUNNI DEVI VS. GOKAL CHAND [REFERRED]
JAIPUR UDYOG LIMITED VS. CEMENT WORK KARMAGHARI SANGH SAHU NAGAR [REFERRED]
CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL AND GO VS. INDUSTRIAL COURT MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR [REFERRED]
FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. LT GOVERNOR DELHI [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of the Labour Court (Respondent 2) on a reference under section 1,0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made by the Delhi Administration (Respondent No.1) directing the reinstatement of Sadhu Ram (Respondent No. 3) is under attack in this writ petition filed by the petitioner employer.

(2.) Sadhu Ram was a probationer bus conductor whose services were terminated on 7-9-1967 in accordance with his contract of service and the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 which continued to be in force under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 under which the employer could terminate his services without notice and without assigning any reasons. But on 23-4-1966 Sadhu Ram had lost 50 bus tickets. On 24-9-1^66 he was served with a chargesheet. On 21-8-1967 he was informed that the inquiry against him would take place on 8-9-1967. No occasion for holding the inquiry arose, however, because of the above-mentioned termination of services.

(3.) Sadhu Ram did not approach the Government directly for making any reference of any industrial dispute between him and the petitioner. During the conciliation proceedings held on 14-4-1969, the question whether he had made a demand on the petitioner for his reinstatement was neither raised nor discussed nor decided. The following reference by the Delhi Administration was made on 17-11-1970 on the report of the Conciliation Officer under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-

Click here to view full judgment.

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address