Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Arjunlal Rajak on 24 February, 2006
12. Arjunlal Rajak (supra) also was a case where the
question was relating to the burden of proof as regards
completion of 240 days.
Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs Surinder Kumar on 5 May, 2006
11. The judgment in Municipal Council, Sujanpur v.
Surinder Kumar [(2006) 5 SCC 173] was a case where the
workmen could not establish non-completion of 240 days of
work. In the said judgment, the Apex Court held that the
burden of proof, having regard to the principles analogous to
Section 106 of the Evidence Act that he was not gainfully
WP(C) No.37442/2023 & connected cases
:6:
employed, was on the workman. The issue involved in the
case was not regarding the gainful employment of the
workmen. The issue involved was the burden of proof to
establish non-completion of 240 days of work by the
workmen. Therefore, the said judgment will not help the
petitioner.
Rajasthan Gramin Bank vs Bishan Lal Bairwa on 13 April, 2009
Rajasthan Gramin Bank (supra)
was a case where the Management had adduced supporting
evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed.
Therefore, the said judgment will not be of any avail to the
petitioner.
1