| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/377817 |
| Subject | Labour and Industrial |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Aug-03-2001 |
| Case Number | Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998 |
| Judge | G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ. |
| Reported in | 2002(3)KarLJ348 |
| Acts | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A |
| Appellant | Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad |
| Respondent | i.F. Kulkarni and ors. |
| Appellant Advocate | V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv. |
| Disposition | Appeal allowed |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]- - --where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a labour court, tribunal or national tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]1. the grievance of the appellant-life insurance corporation of india is that though both the labour court and the learned single judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.2. sri v.c. brahmarayappa, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, section 11-a of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (in short referred to as the 'act') will have no application. section 11-a reads as under:'powers of labour court, tribunals and national tribunals to give appropriate relief in.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Dharwad Vs I F Kulkarni and ors - Citation 377817 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '377817', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> - Sections 11A', 'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 4647 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - --Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require: Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'V.C. Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Subramanya Bhat, Adv. for ;K. Subbarao, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2001-08-03', 'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.</p><p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:</p><p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:</p><p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.</p><p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.</p><p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:</p><p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.</p><p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 </p><p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.</p><p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--</p><p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.</p><p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2002(3)KarLJ348', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'i.F. Kulkarni and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $args = array( (int) 0 => '377817', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/377817/life-insurance-corporation-india-dharwad-vs-f-kulkarni' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:', (int) 2 => '<p>'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terras and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances may require:', (int) 3 => '<p>Provided that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'.', (int) 4 => '<p>3. It cannot be disputed, and oven the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute, that the case of voluntary retirement is not covered by the words 'either discharge or dismissal'.', (int) 5 => '<p>4. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , : (1991)ILLJ39SC it has been held that:', (int) 6 => '<p>'If an employee tenders his resignation, it becomes an act of the employee who chooses to voluntarily give up the job, and it is neither retrenchment nor termination'.', (int) 7 => '<p>The said judgment has been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Others v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Others., : [1998]1SCR225 ', (int) 8 => '<p>5. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal, despite having noticed that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service which was duly accepted by the appellant-Corporation, it acted in flagrant violation of law by purporting to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, directing reinstatement with all service benefits. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge also could not have approved the award oi the Labour Court on the purported 'humanitarian grounds'.', (int) 9 => '<p>6. It may be of importance to note here that the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ 888 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 2534 haw severely deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely being governed by misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. Para 7 of the report sets out the warning and declares that--', (int) 10 => '<p>'...The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability'.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. In the above view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109