Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
10. In fact a perusal of Ex. MW1/1 shows that the workman has not
completed 240 days with Respondent in the year preceding his termination
or in any particular year. The workman has also not cross-examined MW1
on the said exhibit or in any way proved before the learned Tribunal that the
said document was forged or fabricated. Otherwise also, as per judgment of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in R. M. Yellati (supra) and Range Forest Officer
vs. S.T. Hadimani (supra) the onus was on the workman to show that he had
completed 240 days with the Management in the year preceding his
W.P. (C) No. 3130 of 2006 Page 7 of 9
termination which he failed to discharge. Hence, he cannot claim benefit
under Section 25F.
Dir.,Fisheries Terminal Division vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda on 9 November, 2009
Reliance is
placed on Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010
(3) 192, Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai
Chavda, 2010 LAB IC 1089 and The Director General Works, CPWD vs.
Davinder Singh, LPA 13/2008 decided by this Court on 12th February, 2008.
It is lastly contended that due to a typographical error in acquittal order dated
26th August, 2000 showing the date occurrence as 7th November, 1994
instead of 7th July, 1994, the learned Tribunal has wrongly come to a
conclusion that the workman‟s services were not terminated in July, 1994
rather he himself did not report for duty in July and did not make any effort
to resume his duty for seven months and thus he voluntarily abandoned his
duties. Despite the fact that the Petitioner was taking all steps to resume his
duties and even met the Section Officer of Management on 24th January,
1995 when the workman was released on bail asking him to take him back
on duties, he was refused duty.
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
10. In fact a perusal of Ex. MW1/1 shows that the workman has not
completed 240 days with Respondent in the year preceding his termination
or in any particular year. The workman has also not cross-examined MW1
on the said exhibit or in any way proved before the learned Tribunal that the
said document was forged or fabricated. Otherwise also, as per judgment of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in R. M. Yellati (supra) and Range Forest Officer
vs. S.T. Hadimani (supra) the onus was on the workman to show that he had
completed 240 days with the Management in the year preceding his
W.P. (C) No. 3130 of 2006 Page 7 of 9
termination which he failed to discharge. Hence, he cannot claim benefit
under Section 25F.
State Of Gujarat And Ors. vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar on 31 January, 2001
"3. For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the
question as to whether the appellant is an "industry" or not,
though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State
of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713.
In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on
the management without first determining on the basis of
cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than
240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case
of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied
by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to
show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own
statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient
evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that
a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No
proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or
record of appointment or engagement for this period was
produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is
liable to be set aside. However, Mr. Hegde appearing for the
Department states that the State is really interested in getting
the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment
on compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was
allegedly engaged prior to his termination, within two months
from today."