Can CGIT challenge the disciplinary proceedings or inquiry proceedings? If so, kindly provide the reference number or supporting documents for the same. I am dealing with a matter where CGIT has ruled against my organization, and we want to appeal in the high court. But on what grounds can we challenge the decision of the CGIT Court? Thank you in advance. Seniors, please advise me.
Regards,
Neha
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1Regards,
Neha
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sneha, I think it is very difficult to provide a concrete answer to your query based on your cryptic narration. Although an Industrial Tribunal is not a court, its powers are broader than those of a Civil Court concerning the matters referred for its decision. However, no Industrial Tribunal can exceed the scope of the issues referred to it. If any question of law is involved in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, the aggrieved party can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Neha, unless we know the case and the verdict passed thereupon, it is difficult to say whether the order passed can be challenged or not. You can challenge the order on the grounds of your "terms" against which a judgment is passed. You need to arrange all such documents in support of your points, which have sanctity in the eyes of the law but are ignored by the IT.
In my suggestion, if you can share the case and order, our learned members of the forum can guide or suggest suitably. Mr. Umakanthan M, one of the senior-most counsels, rightly pointed out the flaw that remains in your posting. Is any advocate put forth for the case? If yes, what are his views on the matter? I hope you will be able to understand the view put forth by me.
Regards, [Phone Number Removed For Privacy-Reasons]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In my suggestion, if you can share the case and order, our learned members of the forum can guide or suggest suitably. Mr. Umakanthan M, one of the senior-most counsels, rightly pointed out the flaw that remains in your posting. Is any advocate put forth for the case? If yes, what are his views on the matter? I hope you will be able to understand the view put forth by me.
Regards, [Phone Number Removed For Privacy-Reasons]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs)
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs) are set up under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the adjudication of industrial disputes arising in the Central Sphere. The CGIT-cum-LCs have been established with the objective of maintaining peace and harmony in the industrial sector by ensuring the quick and timely disposal of industrial disputes through adjudication, so that industrial growth does not suffer due to widespread industrial unrest.
Powers of the CGIT-cum-LCs
The Supreme Court has clearly held that after the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, effective from 15.12.1971, the CGIT-cum-LC has the power of an Appellate Court. It can also re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion if the situation warrants. The earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and another v. Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130, was specifically held to be not applicable in view of the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act
The scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act was explained by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management, [1973] 1 SCC 813: 1973 I LLJ 278. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal is now empowered to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the evidence relied on by an employer establishes the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion drawn by an employer from the evidence has now been replaced by the Tribunal's satisfaction that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case can no longer be invoked by an employer.
The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the employer's satisfaction has ceased to be so, and now it is the Tribunal's satisfaction that finally decides the matter.
To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re-appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately, it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award the workman only a lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has now been conferred on the Tribunal by Section 11-A.
Appeal Against CGIT Decisions
From the above, it is very clear that the CGIT has been bestowed extensive powers in interfering with the decision of the employer in disciplinary and other service matters. The remedy against its decision lies before the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of our Constitution. To invoke Article 226, there has to be a substantial irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal causing grave prejudice to you. In proceedings as per Article 227, issues like factual error, legal error, or inadequate appreciation of evidence could be tried.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs) are set up under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the adjudication of industrial disputes arising in the Central Sphere. The CGIT-cum-LCs have been established with the objective of maintaining peace and harmony in the industrial sector by ensuring the quick and timely disposal of industrial disputes through adjudication, so that industrial growth does not suffer due to widespread industrial unrest.
Powers of the CGIT-cum-LCs
The Supreme Court has clearly held that after the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, effective from 15.12.1971, the CGIT-cum-LC has the power of an Appellate Court. It can also re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion if the situation warrants. The earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and another v. Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130, was specifically held to be not applicable in view of the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act
The scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act was explained by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management, [1973] 1 SCC 813: 1973 I LLJ 278. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal is now empowered to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the evidence relied on by an employer establishes the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion drawn by an employer from the evidence has now been replaced by the Tribunal's satisfaction that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case can no longer be invoked by an employer.
The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the employer's satisfaction has ceased to be so, and now it is the Tribunal's satisfaction that finally decides the matter.
To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re-appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately, it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award the workman only a lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has now been conferred on the Tribunal by Section 11-A.
Appeal Against CGIT Decisions
From the above, it is very clear that the CGIT has been bestowed extensive powers in interfering with the decision of the employer in disciplinary and other service matters. The remedy against its decision lies before the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of our Constitution. To invoke Article 226, there has to be a substantial irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal causing grave prejudice to you. In proceedings as per Article 227, issues like factual error, legal error, or inadequate appreciation of evidence could be tried.
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.
VARIOUS BANK DETAILS NAGPUR.doc
Manu-_sep-bank- hrd_142.ppt
Man-power-reque stion_897.zip