Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1048 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005

The vs Amarben on 5 November, 2011

Labour court has considered that on the basis of the muter roll produced by petitioner that the petitioner has produced muster of 1977 as per which workman performed duties of 216 days and the year 1978 wherein workman performed duties of 109 days but petitioner has not produced muster roll of the whole period though it was in its custody in view of that, the labour court considered the decision of the apex court RM Yellatti (supra) and considering that decision, the labour court has come to the conclusion that by oral evidence of the respondent, completion of 240 days has been proved because petitioner has not produced duty book where presence of the workmen was being marked and based upon that finding, therefore, labour court came to the conclusion that section 25F has been violated by the petitioner. Labour court has also considered that the seniority list of the workmen working in the establishment was not being maintained by the petitioner which is violative of section 25G and subsequently, after termination, new workmen were appointed and at that time, respondents were not called for work by the petitioner and, therefore, section 25H is also violated.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Executive Engineer vs Harisingh Modhbhai Gadhvi on 3 August, 2007

6. Labour Court has come to the conclusion the oral evidence of the workman concerned vide Exh.10 had remained uncontroverted in cross examination by the petitioner before the labour court. Labour court also considered that the seniority list was not published by the petitioner before passing order of termination against workman concerned. Labour court also appreciated that no muster card, presence card, wage slip, identity card were supplied by the petitioner to respondent-workman and, therefore, workman concerned was having no material with him except to contend on oath before the labour court that he was working for 12 years continuously and has also completed 240 days continuous service in a year preceding the date of termination and that part of their oral evidence was cross examined by the petitioner before the labour court. Therefore, labour court considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.M. Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer, and also came to the conclusion that the respondent has proved completion of 240 days continuous service and, in view of the non compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947, action of termination of his service is violative of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947. Thus, labour court has recorded clear finding that 240 days continuous service was proved by the workman and the petitioner has violated Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - H K Rathod - Full Document

The Executive Engineer And 2 Ors. vs Raghubhai Ukabhai And 6 Ors. on 26 July, 2007

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mulia has, while supporting the award in question, submitted that the evidence of the workmen on affidavit had remained unchallenged because same was not cross examined by the petitioner. He submits that at the time of terminating services of the workmen concerned, junior employees were retained and continued in service and subsequently fresh workmen were also engaged by the petitioner as daily wager and at that time, petitioner had not given offer of work to the workmen concerned and, therefore, labour court has rightly set aside the order of termination and rightly granted reinstatement alone. He also submits that the seniority list was not published by the petitioner and no documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by petitioner in support of the contentions raised by petitioner in his written statement, in respect of presence card, wage slip, identity card and muster roll of the workmen working in the establishment of petitioner and, therefore, labour court was right in considering the evidence on record and and rightly relied upon he decision of the apex court in case of RM Yellatti v. Asstt.Executive Engineer . He also submits that the labour court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and has not committed any error in law or facts in granting reinstatement in favour of the workmen concerned and, therefore, no interference of this Court is warranted in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - H K Rathod - Full Document

The Executive Engineer And Ors. vs Shantuben Chhaganbhai Makwana on 8 August, 2007

18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22/11/1988 to 20/6/1994. This period is the period borne out the certificate (Ex. W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer the evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management produce five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex. M1, Ex. M2 and Ex. M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex. M4 and Ex. M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21/1/1994 to 20/2/1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour Court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7/6/2000 in writ petition No. 17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workmen are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workmen was working in SD 1, Athani and Ex. W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No. 1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex. W1 refers to the period 22/11/1988 to 20/6/1994, the workmen had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the Labour Court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workmen had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Deputy vs Nanjibhai on 28 March, 2011

18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22/11/1988 to 20/6/1994. This period is the period borne out the certificate (Ex. W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer the evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management produce five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex.M1, Ex.M2 and Ex.M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex. M4 and Ex. M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21/1/1994 to 20/2/1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour Court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7/6/2000 in writ petition No. 17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workmen are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workmen was working in SD 1, Athani and Ex. W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No. 1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex. W1 refers to the period 22/11/1988 to 20/6/1994, the workmen had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the Labour Court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workmen had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Dhrangadhra Municipality vs Ganpatbhai Jethabhai Makwana on 7 August, 2007

Then the labour court has considered the submissions of both the learned Advocates appearing before him and after appreciating the evidence on record, labour court came to the conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days continuous service within 12 months preceding the date of termination meaning thereby, from November, 1997 to November, 1998, workman completed 240 days continuous service as per the record of the petitioner. Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 was not complied with by the petitioner and the labour court has drawn adverse inference against the petitioner because documents in possession of the petitioner as admitted by witness for the petitioner were not produced by the petitioner before the labour court though specific application was made by the respondent workman before the labour court. Ultimately, labour court has come to the conclusion that at the time of terminating services of the respondent, employees junior to the respondent workman were continued in service and after termination of the services of the respondent workman, new fresh workmen were recruited or appointed or engaged by the petitioner and, therefore, according to the labour court, Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act, 1947 have been violated by the petitioner and, therefore, based upon such conclusions, labour court granted reinstatement to the respondent workman without back wages for the interim period. Labour court has considered the decision of the apex court in case of RM Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer . Submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Karia cannot be accepted for the simple reason that looking to the working days of the respondent workman as per the record of the petitioner, from November, 1997 to November, 1998, respondent workman was completing 240 days continuous service and as such, was entitled for protection of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947. Admittedly, petitioner has not complied with Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 at the time of terminating services of the respondent workman and it is also not the case of the petitioner either before Page 1229 the labour court or before this Court that the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 are not applicable to the petitioner establishment. Therefore, in view of non compliance of Section 25F, order of termination is bad and void ab initio. Respondent is deemed to be in service for all purposes. Documents which were in custody of the petitioner as admitted by the witness for petitioner were not produced by petitioner before labour court inspite of the request made by the workman and, therefore, labour court was right in drawing adverse inference against the petitioner. Labour court has considered various decisions of this Court and other High Court while considering the evidence on record. As regards the submission of the learned Advocate Mr. Karia that as the respondent was not appointed by following due process of recruitment rules, he was not entitled for reinstatement, such submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the dispute was not relating to regularization of the respondent workman but it was as to whether the respondent should be reinstated in service on his original post or not and whether back wages for interim period should be granted to him or not. Therefore, labour court was not deciding the status of workman or issue of regularization of the workman but was considering as to whether the termination of service of respondent workman is legal and valid or not and whether he is entitled for reinstatement or not. Further, learned Advocate Mr. Karia has not been able to point out as to on which basis he is making this submission that merely because of back door entry, Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 is not applicable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - H K Rathod - Full Document

State vs Ashokbhai on 7 April, 2011

18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994. This period is the period borne out by the certificate (Ex.W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer. The evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management needs to be noticed. The management produced five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex.M1, Ex.M2 and Ex.M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex.M4 and Ex.M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21.1.1994 to 20.2.1994 and 21.3.1994 to 20.4.1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the division bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court and confirmed by the learned single judge vide order dated 7.6.2000 in writ petition no.17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workman are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workman was working in SD-1, Athani and Ex.W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No.1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex.W1 refers to the period 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994, the workman had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the labour court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the division bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.
Gujarat High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

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

Having correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Act, the High Court rightly drew an adverse presumption for non-production of the attendance registers and the muster rolls for the years 1991 onwards. The best evidence having been withheld, the High Court was entitled to draw such adverse inference. The views expressed by this Court on the question of burden of proof in Range Forest Officer case were watered down by the subsequent decision in R.M. Yellatti case and in our view the workmen had discharged their initial onus by production of the documents in their possession.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next