Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: llr in Vide Notification No. ... vs S. Mani And Others 2005 Llr 737 on 10 January, 2008Matching Fragments
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued illhealth."
9. In Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore vs. S. Mani and others 2005 LLR 737 DocInformation:SubjectID NO.960/2006 Page numbers Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
"15. The provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act are required to be complied with if the workman concerned had completed 240 days of service in a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination."
10. In Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh Kumar 2007 LLR 183 SC the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :
"For applicability of section 25 F of the I.D. Act, the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination."
11. Onus is on the claimant to prove that he rendered continuous service of at least 240 days with the management in a year preceding the date of alleged termination of his services as is clear from the following judgments :
12. In Ravi N. Tikku v. Deputy Commissioner (S.W.) & Ors. 2006 LLR 496 recently our own Hon'ble High Court discussed the issue of onus of proof of DocInformation:SubjectID NO.960/2006 Page numbers employment and observed as follows :
"It has been repeatedly held that so far as an industrial claim is concerned, its procedure is guided by the general principles of the law of evidence that he who asserts must prove. Based on the rule of Roman Law - 'el incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat' - the burden of proving a fact rests on party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and no upon the party who denied it, for a negative does not admit of direct and simple proof. It is well settled that the onus and burden of proof of establishing the employment is consequently on the workman. The workman can discharge the same by leading cogent and reliable evidence in respect thereof which could be oral or documentary. In the even of nonavailability of the same, he can very well cause the same to he summoned from the authorities concerned or the management itself and place the same before the industrial adjudicator."
15. How the worker can prove that he was the workman of the respondent management was clarified by our own Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Automobile Association of Upper India vs. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. 2006 LLR 851 wherein it was held that workman can prove his employment by production of appointment letter, written agreement or by circumstantial DocInformation:SubjectID NO.960/2006 Page numbers evidence which can be in the nature of attendance register, salary register, leave record, deposition of PF contribution, employees state insurance contribution. It was also held that the workman can call upon the management to produce these records and on failure of the management to produce such record, an adverse inference can be drawn against the management.