Once the departmental enquiry was held legal and proper, whether the interference in punishment by the labour court can be set aside as the same is not justified ?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
425From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Proportionality of Punishment in Labour Court Proceedings
The proportionality of punishment can be challenged in a proceeding before the Labour Court as per the ID Act 1947, and there is no provision for further appeal or revision therefrom. However, the general principle is that the High Court, under Article 227 (Supervisory jurisdiction), can examine the matter to determine if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, if any settled legal principle has been violated, or if the Labour Court has breached principles of natural justice. There have been various instances where both the High Court and the Supreme Court have interfered in the punishments ordered by the Labour Court.
Historical Perspective on Court Leniency
During the days of Justice Krishna Iyer, DA Desai, Chinnappa Reddy, and Venkitachaliah (1980s to 1990s), the Supreme Court was quite lenient towards errant employees and often provided some form of relief. It was established as a standard that upon proving charges of theft, dishonesty, fraud, etc., termination is the only suitable punishment. Defending the punishment during this period based on the principle of proportionality was challenging.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
The proportionality of punishment can be challenged in a proceeding before the Labour Court as per the ID Act 1947, and there is no provision for further appeal or revision therefrom. However, the general principle is that the High Court, under Article 227 (Supervisory jurisdiction), can examine the matter to determine if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, if any settled legal principle has been violated, or if the Labour Court has breached principles of natural justice. There have been various instances where both the High Court and the Supreme Court have interfered in the punishments ordered by the Labour Court.
Historical Perspective on Court Leniency
During the days of Justice Krishna Iyer, DA Desai, Chinnappa Reddy, and Venkitachaliah (1980s to 1990s), the Supreme Court was quite lenient towards errant employees and often provided some form of relief. It was established as a standard that upon proving charges of theft, dishonesty, fraud, etc., termination is the only suitable punishment. Defending the punishment during this period based on the principle of proportionality was challenging.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Performance Review Form - KDCL for year 2010.xls
Labour laws.ppt
A-Role of labour contractors in global production networks -A-1 Imp..pdf