Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

AR for the workman also cited Kanhiya Lal vs. Union of India 2007 LLR 492(Del), wherein it was held that:

"The Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT is competent to refer the dispute with respect to Rajghat Samadhi Samiti and authority under the Central Govt."

On the other hand, management has cited ITDC v/s Delhi Administration 61 FJR P.139 SC, Bhimsen v/s H.R.Chaturvedi , 1LLN (P&H) 1990, Y.P.Bhanusimha v/s L.E.O .(c) 101 FJR 374 (2002). In all these cases, it was held by their Lordship that:

Similar was held in Manager of RBI v/s S.Mani 2005 LLR

iv) In Bhogpur Co­operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Huarmesh Kumar 2007 LLR 183 SC, the Hon'ble Apex court held that :

"For applicability of Section 25 F of 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."

v) In his evidence, claimant has filed certain job cards Ex. CW1/H1 to CW1/H7 alongwith other documents but these documents do not prove that the claimant rendered continuous service of 240 days in a calender year. Moreover, he admitted in his cross examination that he ­26­ used to sign the log book only on the date when he used to work for the management.

ii) On the other hand, AR for management cited General Manager, BSNL v/s Mahesh Chand 2008 LLR 435, wherein it was held that:

"when there exists no sanctioned post, reinstatement cannot be made."

AR for management also cited State of U.P. v/s POLC 2009 LLR P.51, wherein it was held that:

"when the workman was not having any appointment letter issued by the management, no presumption of employment can be raised in favour of the workman."

AR for management also cited Vijay Kumar v/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court 2009 LLR 68, wherein it was held that:

"unless the person has confirmed and remained on training is not entitled for confirmation as a matter of right."

AR for management also cited Meham Co­operative Sugar Mill Ltd. v/s Presiding Officer & Anr. 2009 LLR 89 wherein it was held that:

­29­ "back door entry in the Govt. departments are not allowed and the person appointed as such is not entitled for reinstatement."