<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (1) TMI 656 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220552</link>
    <description>Non-supply of an enquiry report before disciplinary punishment does not by itself entitle a workman to reinstatement; the employee must show actual prejudice, and if prejudice is proved the proper course is usually remand or continuation from the stage of supplying the report. A dismissal imposed as punishment in disciplinary proceedings is not retrenchment, so Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply. On the facts, deliberate refusal of lawful work instructions and unauthorised absence were serious misconduct, and the finding of disproportionate punishment could not be sustained. The award was quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in line with the governing principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 656 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220552</link>
      <description>Non-supply of an enquiry report before disciplinary punishment does not by itself entitle a workman to reinstatement; the employee must show actual prejudice, and if prejudice is proved the proper course is usually remand or continuation from the stage of supplying the report. A dismissal imposed as punishment in disciplinary proceedings is not retrenchment, so Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply. On the facts, deliberate refusal of lawful work instructions and unauthorised absence were serious misconduct, and the finding of disproportionate punishment could not be sustained. The award was quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in line with the governing principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>