Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs Surinder Kumar on 5 May, 2006

Sub-Divisional Engineer, Irrigation ... vs Sarang Marotrao Gurnule on 19 March, 2008

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar reported at (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 172, the Apex Court had noted that the workman had been appointed in violation of the rules at the instance of a Member of Legislative Assembly who was Minister at the relevant time, and that no such appointment could have been made. While allowing the appeal the Court, however, granted monetary compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/-. In para 12 of this judgment, the Court observed that the Labour Court and the High Court proceeded wrongly on the premise that the burden of proof to establish non-completion of 240 days of work within a period of twelve months preceding the termination, was on the management and that the burden was in fact on the workman. The Court also held that it is also a trite law that only because some documents have not been produced by the management, an adverse inference would not be drawn against the management.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 10 - K J Rohee - Full Document

24. In Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghathan ... vs . S. C. Sharma on 17 April, 2008

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled principle that the burden of proof, having regard to the principles analogous to section 106 of the Evidence Act, lies upon the concerned workman to prove that he was not gainfully employed after his alleged termination i.e. during pendency of the industrial dispute.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next