REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

D.T.C. Appellant

V/S

RAJPAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KHARDAH AND CO. LD. VS. THE WORKMAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. K.MANCHE GOWDA [REFERRED TO]
SURATH CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA PORT SHRAMIK UNION VS. CALCUTTA RIVER TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIK LAL N BHUTTA AND ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. N.L.KAKKAR [REFERRED TO]
SADHU RAM VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA MOTORS P LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. K T MORRIS [REFERRED TO]
KHARDAH AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS KLEIN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. LUDH BUDH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA CORPORATION BOMBAY VS. V A REBELLOW [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMIRATAN COTTON MILLS CO LIMITED VS. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
COOPER ENGINEERING LIMITED VS. P P MUNDHE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RATTAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED CHANDIGARH MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED VS. SURESH CHAND:N K SAXENA [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS LAL VS. JAGMOHAN SARAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHATRUGHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. B S HULLIKATTI [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN VS. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA [REFERRED TO]
M D TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. NEETHIVILANGAN KUMBAKONAM [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR ZILA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LIMITED VS. RAM GOPAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD VS. M CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. KHARAK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
D T C VS. ANUP SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated September 23, 1995, October 04, 1997, May 26, 2000 and award dated April 25, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal from time to time in Complaint No.121/89 (Industrial Tribunal-III), later on numbered as 339/89 (in Industrial Tribunal-II).

(2.) The brief summary of the impugned orders is as under: Order dated September 23, 1995 Vide this order the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to place on record certain documents like inquiry proceedings, inquiry report, previous service record of the respondent No.1, show cause notice dated August 18, 1988 and its reminder dated September 02, 1988 and order of removal of the respondent No.1 was rejected. Order dated October 04, 1997 By means of this order the Industrial Tribunal has held that the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' in short) as maintainable, since the petitioner had violated Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Order dated May 26, 2000 Vide this order the Industrial Tribunal had decided the preliminary issue "whether the inquiry conducted by the respondent was not fair and proper as claimed by the complainant" against the petitioner. Award dated April 25, 2001 By means of this award, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent had committed misconduct due to which he was removed from service vide order dated September 06, 1988 and directed his reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity in service of service.

(3.) The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 was appointed by the petitioner corporation as Conductor on September 24, 1979 and was brought on monthly rates of pay with effect from September 01, 1980. On April 27, 1985 the respondent No.1 was charge-sheeted for the following misconduct:

Click here to view full judgment.

D.T.C. Vs. RAJPAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address