Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005
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.
Incharge Officer And Anr vs Shankar Shetty on 31 August, 2010
1 G.M, B.S.N.L and others. vs. Mahesh Chand [(2008) 3
SCC 474]
Page 7 of 21
C/LPA/306/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
2 Incharge Officer and Another vs. Shankar Shetty
[(2010)9 SCC 126]
3 Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation And Another vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC
136]
4 Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan Lal.,
[(2013) 14 SCC 543]
(IV) Shri Desai, learned advocate for the appellant further
contended that the Industrial Tribunal and in turn the learned
Single Judge, ought not to have held that the burden of proof
to substantiate the number of working days had shifted on the
employer. No adverse inference as observed by the Industrial
Tribunal could have been drawn to come to a conclusion that
the respondent had completed 240 days.
Section 17 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Asst.Engineer,Rajasthan Dev.Corp.& ... vs Gitam Singh on 31 January, 2013
1 G.M, B.S.N.L and others. vs. Mahesh Chand [(2008) 3
SCC 474]
Page 7 of 21
C/LPA/306/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
2 Incharge Officer and Another vs. Shankar Shetty
[(2010)9 SCC 126]
3 Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation And Another vs. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC
136]
4 Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan Lal.,
[(2013) 14 SCC 543]
(IV) Shri Desai, learned advocate for the appellant further
contended that the Industrial Tribunal and in turn the learned
Single Judge, ought not to have held that the burden of proof
to substantiate the number of working days had shifted on the
employer. No adverse inference as observed by the Industrial
Tribunal could have been drawn to come to a conclusion that
the respondent had completed 240 days.
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
5.3 Reliance was placed by Shri Mishra, learned advocate
for the respondent in a judgment in the case of Harjinder
Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, by
placing reliance on paragraph 29 of the said judgment.
5.4 With regard to the contention that, Section 25-B which
defines " continuous service" as in Section 25-B(1) and would
Page 10 of 21
C/LPA/306/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
be applicable because no evidence was adduced by the
employer to suggest that the respondent workman had not
worked for more than 240 days and that he was in continuous
service from 1989 to 1995 without interruption would suggest
that compliance of Section 25-F was mandatory. The deeming
fiction of Section 25-B(2) was not applicable in the facts of
this case and merely because such a pleading was made in the
Statement of Claim would not otherwise so suggest.
5.5 Mr. Mishra, relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of The Workmen of American Express
International Banking Corporation And the
Management of American Express International
Banking Corporation in support of his submission that for
calculation of 240 days, holidays need to be taken into
account.
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
5.6 Relying on the judgment in the case of R.M Yellatti vs.
Assistant Executive Engineer, reported in AIR 2006 SC
355, Shri Mishra contended that, in case of a daily wager,
there is no proof of a letter of appointment or receipt and
therefore, only the employer can produce before the Court the
nominal muster roll for the given period and therefore, in
Page 11 of 21
C/LPA/306/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
absence of so proving the case, adverse inference can be
drawn.
1