The disciplinary authority has to give the delinquent an opportunity of hearing, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer.
Anand Kumar Singh vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. CLR III 2009 P. 490
Successive enquiries on the same charges expecting a favourable report are deprecable.
Shaikh Mohd. Hussain vs. A.P. State Wakf Board. CLR III 2009 P. 753 (AP HC)
When workman is convicted for the offence of moral turpitude under sec. 302 and 498A of IPC, no domestic enquiry is required before effecting dismissal from services.
The Tata Power Co. Ltd. vs. K.T. Mane and Ors. 2010 LLR 88 (Bom. HC)
The Tata Power Co. Ltd. vs. K.T. Mane and Ors. 2010 LLR 88 (Bom. HC)
Evidence collected during preliminary enquiry behind the back of the delinquent cannot be relied upon unless the concerned witnesses are examined before the Enquiry Officer.
M.B. Siddaraju vs. Management of Powergear Ltd. Bangalore. CLR III 2009 P. 290 (Karn. HC)
Dismissal of an employee without holding disciplinary enquiry is not sustainable.
District Manager, TASMAC, Coimbatore Region, Erode vs. S. Velliyangiri. CLR 2009 P. 1032 (Madras HC)
No approval to the penalty of dismissal justified when the departmental enquiry is not bonafide.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour & Anr. CLR III 2009 P. 775 (Madras HC)
Non-furnishing of documents to the delinquent employee is fatal making enquiry invalid.
Management of Turbo Energy Ltd. Pulivalam vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore & Anr. LLJ IV 2009 P. 115 (Madras HC)
If no objection is raised during the enquiry about the language of the proceeding, then the same cannot be subsequently raised.
Harnek Gill vs. State Bank of Patiala. CLR II 2009 P. 645 (Punjab & Haryana HC)
When employer dispensed with holding the domestic enquiry, some cause have to be shown by management.
P.N. Shukla vs. Chairman, U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., Lucknow. 2009 (123) FLR 993 (Alla. HC)
Even when the delinquent employee does not cooperate in the enquiry, the opposite parties are not absolved of the duty for proving the charges by an independent enquiry.
Z.A. Siddiqui vs. District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sitapur and Others. 2009 (123) FLR 841 (Alla. HC)
In preliminary enquiry it is discretion of the management to provide hearing to the workman but in
regular enquiry it is definitely required that workman should be heard.
Devandran L. vs. Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (Central), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others. 2009 IV LLJ 895 (Mad. HC)
Validity of enquiry has to be decided first before justification of punishment.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through Its Senior Regional Manager, Nagpur vs. Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur & Ors. 2010 LLR 265 (Bom. HC)
Labour Court has power to reappreciate the evidence of the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the findings are correct or not.
S. Jayraman vs. Management, Tamil Nadu S.R.T.C. Salem. LLN(1) 2010 P. 258 (Madras HC)
While adjudicating the dispute pertaining to dismissal of workmen after holding of enquiry, it is not imperative by the Labour Court to frame and decide the issue about validity of enquiry at preliminary stage.
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rampur and Anr. 2010 LLR 529 (All. HC)
Completing enquiry within 4-5 days when workman refused to accept the management communication and bycotted the enquiry will not be invalid and dismissal based on such ex-parte enquiry findings will be proper.
Surinder Kaushik vs. General Manager, Badarpur Thermal Power Station. 2010 LLR 466 (Del. HC)
A delay of two yeas and four months in issuing the chargesheet, after the evidence, will not vitiate the enquiry.
Bindaprasad S/o Satyanarayan Chourasia vs. Narmada Malwa Gramin Bank, Indore. 2010 LLR 521 (MP HC)
No fresh enquiry can be instituted for the same charges by the authority without setting aside the
findings of the earlier enquiry officer.
Shaik Mohd. Hussain vs. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad. 2010(125) FLR 471 (AP HC)
Enquiry will be vitiated when EO relied upon non supply of document to employee.
B. Viswanatha Reddy vs. Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by Its Chairman and Others. 2010(125) FLR 493 (AP HC)
When security guards admitted the guilt of having consumed liquor on duty and also admitting the same fact before enquiry, completion of enquiry within 1½ hours will not make enquiry invalid.
A.N. Bhoir and Ors. vs. The Tata Power Company Ltd. & Anr. 2010 LLR 694 (Bom. HC)
Ex-parte enquiry will be invalid when disciplinary authority discarded employee medical certificate about unability to attend the enquiry. It will be the enquiry officer and not the disciplianry authority who will decide about adjournment of the enquiry.
Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. K. Prabhakaran Amrutha. 2010 LLR 749 (Kerala HC)
Enquiry can’t be stayed despite pendency of criminal proceedings.
Gulab Chandra Vishwakarma vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. 2010 LLR 758 (MP HC)
An enquiry will be violative of principles of natural justice when the delinquent employee has not been communicated the time, date and venue of the enquiry hence the order of termination of the person is liable to be set aside.
Km. Minati Bhattacharya vs. Regional Food Controller, Kanpur and Others. 2010 LLR 887 (Alla. HC)
If enquiry officer and management representative are legally trained person, employee would be entitled for assistence of legal practitioner.
Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat vs. Clairant Chemicals (I) Ltd. and another. 2010(126) FLR 360 (Alla. HC)
Ex-parte enquiry will be valid when repeated adjournments were granted to workman on request
and even then he absented and did not produce evidence.
Mohammad Vakas S/o Mohammad Awes vs. Factory Manager, B. Arun Kumars International Ltd., Pithampur, District-Dhar. 2010 LLR 850 (MP HC)
Labour Court is bound to frame and decide the preliminary issue first of validity and fairness of the enquiry in case of dismissal.
Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. Pondicherry vs. Presiding Officer, (II Addl. District Judge) Labour Court, Pondicherry & Ors. 2010 LLR 820 (Mad. HC)
Court not to interfere in the order when there is no infirmity in the enquiry.
Deo Sidh Singh vs. Bihar State Electricity Board. 2010 LLR 993 (Patna HC)
When in enquiry fair chance is not given to the workman to defend himself, must be restarted with new enquiry officer.
Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Suriyawan, Bhadohi and Another vs. Aziz and Another. 2010 LLR 1122 (All. HC)
Enquiry conducted by an advocate as enquiry officer who is active member of the law firm providing all legal support to the employer about disciplinary proceedings against employee would be null and void specifically when such firm represented the management in the court
against such termination.
Taj Mahal Hotel vs. Industrial Tribunal-I & Ors. 2010 LLR 1077 (Del. HC)
When neither the bus conductor was examined in the enquiry nor driver explanation was considered by the enquiry officer, Industrial Tribunal rightly set aside the punishment of increment stoppage based on such enquiry findings.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Amarsinh Premjibhai Parmar through Secretary. 2010 LLR 1067 (Guj. HC)
Disciplinary authority can differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. Enquiry officer can’t be compelled to examine a particualr witness. Even one witness supporting the charge will be sufficient.
V. Marimuthu vs. R. Ramachandran and Others. 2010 LLR 1096 (Madras HC)
Court can’t re-appreciate the evidence recorded in the disciplinary enquiry. Court has to see only whether the evidence on which disciplinary authority has relied, is available on the record or not.
Sagar Sadashiv Kasture, Pune vs. Central Bank of India, Bombay and Ors. 2010 III CLR 591 (Bom. HC)
It is for the workman and not employer to prove validity of the enquiry.
Federal Mogul Bearing India Ltd. v. State of H.P. & Ors. 2010 LLR 1162 (HP HC)
Evidence of hand writing expert is not required when bank employee made entries undoubtedly.
Chandra Shekhar Prasad Sinha vs. State Bank of India, Ranchi & Ors. 2010 LLR 1241 (Jharkhand HC)
When important witness was not examined in the enquiry and driver acquitted by the court for
rash and negligent driving, termination on such ground would be illegal and reinstatement will be natural consequence.
K. Desikamani (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore and Anr. 2010 LLR 1216 (Mad. HC)
Court can only interfere in the case of dismissal or discharge and not otherwise punishment. When enquiry was held to be fair and valid, reducing the punishment
Smt. Husna Khatoon and Others vs. M/s. Urmila Transport Company. 2009 LLR 1303 (Chattisgarh HC)
Dependents of an employee who committed suicide owing to depressive neurosis caused by an employment injury are entitled to make a claim u/s. 52 of ESI Act.
ESI Corporation vs. Leela. LLN (4) 2009 P. 274 (Kerala HC)
If employee crossed the salary limit under ESI on the date of accident, he will not be entitled to any benefit.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Coimbatore vs. N. Marappan and Another. 2010 LLR 52 (Madras HC)
Directors if getting salary will be deemed as employee under ESI Act and will be counted for the purpose of coverage.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Haryana Biological (P) Ltd. 2010 LLR 38 (Punjab & Haryana HC)
When the deceased workman was not covered under ESIC, direction of W.C. Commissioner making liable ESIC to pay compensation would be illegal. Bar of sec. 53 of ESI Act would operate.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal and Others. 2010 LLR 145 (AP HC)
Both the transferor and transferee will be jointly and severally liable for payment of ESI contributions.
Regional Director, ESIC and Anr. vs. B. Mohanchandran Nair. 2010 LLR 155 (Kerala HC)
ESI will not simply become applicable merely because EPF is applicable. Definition of factory under both the Acts are different. When power is not in use and employees are less than 20, ESI will not be applicable.
E.A. Peeran Sahib Sons by Partner E.A.P. Akbar Basha, Peervan Bidi Merchants, Erode vs. Joint Regional Director and Deputy Director, Sub-Regional Office, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Coimbatore and Anr. 2010 LLR 131 (Madras HC)
Section 72 of the ESI Act prohibiting employer not to reduce wages will be attracted only if two conditions are fulfilled. Firstly that the benefit payable to the employees prior to coming into force of the ESI Act must be under the condition of their service, and secondly that the said benefit must be similar to the benefit conferred by the ESI Act.
Dharam Paul Aggarwal and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others. 2009 (123) FLR 866 (Punjab & Haryana HC)
There is no limitation for imposing damages under ESI Act. of stopping special allowance by the court would be out of jurisdiction.
Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Chennai vs. General Secretary, Bank of India Staff Union, Chennai and Anr. 2010 LLR 1219 (Mad. HC)
Labour Court decision that enquiry was not fair, will not be interfered with by High Court.
Management of FAL Industries Limited, rep. by its Manager, Legal and Company Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Anr. 2010 LLR 1221 (Mad. HC)
Issue of charge sheet after 5 years & non production of original documents will invalidate the enquiry.
Parameswaran V. vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. 2010- III CLR 421 (Mad. HC)
In the case of absenteeism, merely publication in news paper will not be sufficient to presume
abondonment of job by employee. Enquiry is required.
Shiv Shanker Sharma vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 2010 LLR 1175 (Raj. HC)
Non-furnishing of enquiry report to delinquent employee will be violative of principles of natural justice and vitiate the proceedings and punishment.
Madhusudan Dikshit vs. UCO Bank, rep. thro its G.M. (Personnel). 2009 IV LLJ 829 (Orissa HC)
Termination of a workman, without holding of enquiry, will not be valid so much so that even no notice, as stipulated by clause 15(X) of the Certified Standing Orders, has been given.
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi vs. Somra Oraon. 2010-II LLJ 471 (Jharkhand HC)
