Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
By virtue of Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between 9-1-2020 to 29-9-2020 and his absence from service during the said period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
The Court observed that this was not the isolated case where the jurisdictional SSP of State had dispensed with inquiry. As soon as an FIR was registered against the police official, the jurisdictional SSPs opted to dispense with inquiry.
The Court referred to MAT’s finding that the petitioners were empowered to terminate the services of a probationer in case of misconduct, provided that such misconduct is proved after an opportunity of being heard is availed to the respondent. However, the same was not followed by the petitioners.
“Where the job continues without even any performance appraisal or periodical renewal, and the person engaged in the same would be termed as a “trainee”, as it is in the present case, the same would be considered as unfair labour practice.”
“The term ‘serious crime’ connotes a crime beyond the ordinary, inviting a more serious major punishment than what may be given in the case of a minor omission.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the petitioner had been absent for an extended period, both before and after the court’s interim orders.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: While allowing the instant petition filed against the order, whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., reinstated All India Chess Federation (AICF) secretary Bharat Singh Chauhan
Supreme court: In a long ongoing battle between Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and its temporary/badli/part-time employees over claim for absorption,
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed a petition which was filed challenging the order of termination passed by the respondent –
Supreme Court: In a case where a bank employee was dismissed from services despite lack of evidence, the bench of KM Joseph
Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan, J., partly allowed the challenge against the order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner had been
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. while holding the reason assigned by the Director-General of Police (DGP) while rejecting the claim
When a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, the choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.
Supreme Court: The bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that reinstatement with full back wages is not
“NCLAT appears to have granted the relief of reinstatement gratis without any foundation in pleadings, without any prayer and without any basis in law, thereby forcing upon the appellant an Executive Chairman, who now is unable to support his own reinstatement. “
Bombay High Court: S.C. Gupte, J., addressed a group of petitions that challenged four sets of identical awards passed by Labour Courts
Gujarat High Court: A.P. Thaker J., upholding the decision of the Labour Court with respect to reinstatement of the workman, directed the
Bombay High Court: Ravindra V. Ghuhe, J. allowed a petition filed by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation against the order of the Labour