Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 358 (6.37 seconds)
Documents citing Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005

Zonal Manager State Bank Of India vs Modi Rajeshkumar Shantilal on 3 May, 2018

7.3 As far as issue (B) is concerned, Shri Desai's contention by relying on decision in the case of Surendranagar (supra) would be of no avail. An application Exh.11 was moved by the respondent workman for production of vouchers from the employer. An order at Exh. 16 was passed. The employer failed to produce such vouchers and therefore did not discharge the burden of proving otherwise. The learned Single Judge as well as the Industrial Tribunal, in our opinion therefore, even on the second ground were right in holding that once the employer had failed to negate the assertion of the employee, by failing to discharge the burden, recourse to the deeming fiction of completion of 240 days would not arise. Adverse inference was rightly drawn by the Industrial Tribunal, on the employer's failure to produce Page 19 of 21 C/LPA/306/2008 CAV JUDGMENT relevant record though directed to do so. 8 As far as Shri Desai's reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court to suggest compensation instead of reinstatement is concerned, since the respondent was a daily wager, we do not agree with this submission. The respondent workman has been in employment as a Messenger from 03.01.1989 to 31.12.1995. The period is of approximately six years. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that there was cessation of work for which it was not the employee's fault. The respondent workman therefore, though branded as a daily wager, was in fact, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge in continuous service. Litigious employer has gone back and forth from this Court before the Single Judge to the Division Bench and then Supreme Court and back on two occasions rendering the workman without the fruits of litigation for more than eleven years. No fault can therefore be found with the respondent workman who notwithstanding the employer's zeal to tire him out steadfastly remained patient. Compensation can be no solace to such a workman. 9 For the reasons stated in the judgment, we confirm the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.01.2008. The Page 20 of 21 C/LPA/306/2008 CAV JUDGMENT Appellant Bank is directed to comply with the directions of the Learned Single Judge forthwith. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 15 - A S Dave - Full Document

Rr Naidu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 25 March, 2010

26. The present suit was instituted on 13-9-1971. Respondents No.2 and 3 could not trace the record when they were directed to do so after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18-11-1999, i.e., after 28 years of the institution of the suit (30 years from the date of removal). It is not a case where the documents or the evidence are available with respondents No.2 and 3 and yet they have refused to produce the documents, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendranagar District Panchayat vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (supra) and C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and another (supra), an adverse inference cannot be drawn against respondents No.2 and 3.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R R Naidu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 25 March, 2010

26. The present suit was instituted on 13-9-1971. Respondents No.2 and 3 could not trace the record when they were directed to do so after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18-11-1999, i.e., after 28 years of the institution of the suit (30 years from the date of removal). It is not a case where the documents or the evidence are available with respondents No.2 and 3 and yet they have refused to produce the documents, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendranagar District Panchayat vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (supra) and C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and another (supra), an adverse inference cannot be drawn against respondents No.2 and 3.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siel Limited, Unit Mawana Sugar Works vs State Of U.P. Through The Secretary, ... on 29 November, 2007

The same view was expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (Supra), Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan , and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram . In the aforesaid cases it has been held by the Apex Court held that burden of proof lies on the workman that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the fact that he had been employed for the said period by the employer.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - R Kumar - Full Document

St Puals School vs Smt Mithlesh on 8 November, 2024

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchyat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in (2005) 8 SCC 750, while dealing with a case, wherein the workman, who had more than 10 years of service with the District Panchayat, was terminated from service by an order dated 15.08.1985. An application was moved before the Labour Court for direction to the employer (District Panchayat) to produce muster roll and salary register from the year 1976 to 1986. The stand of the employer was that the workman was never engaged permanently and he was employed for miscellaneous work i.e. whenever there was work he was called for it. It was alleged that the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services and, therefore, the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not required to be followed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ,in the said case, while considering the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) , Section 25-B a n d Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, had, in para 8 and 10, observed as follows:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Through : Secretary vs M/S Shri Ram Offset & Traders on 7 January, 2023

17. It is for claimant to lead evidence for discharging burden of proof of continuous service for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and mere affidavit tendered in evidence is not sufficient to discharge the burden of 240 days of continuous service as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Range Forest Officer Vs. S.P. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25; Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195; Surendernagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahiyabhai Amarsinh (2005) 8 SCC 750; Manager, Reserve Bank of India Bangalore Vs. S.Mani & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100; R.M. Yellatti Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer (2006) SCC 106 AND Mohd. Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 15 SCC 641.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next