Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.20 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of Gujarat And Ors. vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar on 31 January, 2001
In Automobile Association of Upper India
(SUPRA) it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that,
'it is well settled that the primary burden of proof to establish
a plea rests on a person so claiming in this behalf reference
can be appropriately made to the judicial pronouncement in
III (2001) SLT 561; (2001) 9 SCC 713 (715), State of
Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, III
(2004) SLT 180; 2004 LLR 351 (para 49), Nilgiri Coop.
Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 LLR
148, Dhyan Singh Vs. Raman Lal, 1996 Lab.
Dhyan Singh vs Raman Lal on 11 July, 2000
In Automobile Association of Upper India
(SUPRA) it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that,
'it is well settled that the primary burden of proof to establish
a plea rests on a person so claiming in this behalf reference
can be appropriately made to the judicial pronouncement in
III (2001) SLT 561; (2001) 9 SCC 713 (715), State of
Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, III
(2004) SLT 180; 2004 LLR 351 (para 49), Nilgiri Coop.
Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 LLR
148, Dhyan Singh Vs. Raman Lal, 1996 Lab.
Uco Bank vs Presiding Officer & Another on 30 August, 1999
In UCO Bank Vs. Presiding Officer & Another 1999 V AD (Delhi) 514
(SUPRA), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court,
'Now I shall deal with the second issue relating to burden of
proof : Principles regarding burden of proof are stipulated
in Chapter - VII of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 101
to 114A). General Principal, which is laid down in these
sections particularly Section 101 and 102 is that he who
asserts must prove i.e. burden of proof is the obligation to
adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or Court
in order to establish the existence or non - existence of a
fact contended to by a party. Burden of proving a fact rests
on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the
issue and not upon the party who denies it, for a negative is
usually incapable of proof. Dealing with aforesaid
Principles contained in Indian Evidence Act, Mr. O.P.
Malhotra in his book entitled "The Law of Industrial
Disputes", Fifth Edition (Volume 1) Page - 842 states as
under :
'The expression 'burden of proof' has two distinct
and often blurred meanings viz. (i) the burden of
proof as a matter of law and pleadings. This,
burden, as it has been called, for establishing a
case, whether by preponderance of evidence or
beyond a reasonable doubt, and (ii) the burden of
proof in the sense of introducing evidence. In the
Indian Evidence Act, Sec. 101 uses the expression in
the former sense while Sec. 102 uses it in the latter
sense. The former type of onus viz. The burden of
proof of the facts in issue is usually known as the
general burden of proof or the burden of proof on
pleadings. This type of burden of proof has been
called by jurists, the 'legal burden', the legal or
persuasive burden is the burden borne by the party
who will loose the issue unless he satisfies the
Tribunal of the facts to the appropriate degree of
conviction and it is aptly termed the "Risk of Non
Persuasion" by Vigmore. The phrase 'legal burden'
was coined by Lord Denning while the phrase
'persuasive burden' was used by Dr. Glanville
Williams. Other jurists have referred to it as the
"burden of proof on the pleadings". This burden
is entitled to be called the legal burden because its
incident is determined by the substantive law, and
AWARD Page 5 of 11
Sh. Kamal Kishore Vs. M/s. Sriram Offset Printers DID No. 280/08
the adjective persuasive gives some indication of its
real nature. The pleadings do not always indicate
which party bears the burden, and the answer to a
somewhat controversial question is assumed if it is
said to be "fixed", for the epithet is designed to
emphasis the fact that this burden does not shift in
the course of a trial a matter of words about which
there is room for two views in the case of issues to
which certain rebuttable presumptions of law are
applicable. The latter type of onus is called the
professional or the tactical burden. The burden of
proof in the first sense is fixed at the beginning of
the trial by the state of pleadings and it is settled as
a question of law. Remaining unchanged,
throughout the trial exactly where the pleadings
place it and never shifts in any circumstances
whatsoever. The burden of proof in the second
sense, however, constantly shifts as one scale of
evidence or the other preponderates".
Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co.Ltd. & Anr on 4 May, 1979
The point of consideration is as to whether these rules of evidence
would be applicable even in adjudication pleadings under the
Industrial Law. This question was decided by Supreme Court in the
case of Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.
(1979) II LLJ 194 wherein Supreme Court observed that through
the Adjudicatory Authorities under the Act have all the trappings of
a court, they are not hide bound by the statutory provisions of the
Evidence Act Section-11 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act confers
on them powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure
only in respect of matters specified therein. Such Authorities are
created for adjudication of Industrial Disputes between the parties
arrayed before them. Their function being of a quasi - judicial
nature, they have to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of
pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before them in
accordance with Rules of Natural Justice. Therefore, any party
appearing before anyone of such Authorities must make a claim or
demur the claim of the other side. When there is a burden
upon the party to establish a fact so as to invite a decision
in its favour, it has to lead the evidence. The obligation to
lead evidence to establish an averment made by a party is
AWARD Page 6 of 11
Sh. Kamal Kishore Vs. M/s. Sriram Offset Printers DID No. 280/08
on the party making the averment. The test would be who would
fall if no evidence is led. Such party, therefore, must seek
opportunity to lead evidence.
The Management Of Tiruchengode ... vs The Inspector Of Labour (Authority ... on 12 July, 2002
Marketing Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2004
LLR 351 has observed as follows :
AWARD Page 3 of 11
Sh. Kamal Kishore Vs. M/s. Sriram Offset Printers DID No. 280/08
Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors vs Sakattar Singh on 29 November, 2000
26. The Management has neither pleaded nor proved that any enquiry was ever held by
it in the circumstances of absence of this workman. The Management appears to
have not complied with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in
Shakuntala's Export House (P) Ltd. Vs. Secretary (Labour) and Ors.
MANU/DE/0541/2005 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab and Sind
Bank Vs. Sakattar Singh (2001) 1 SCC 214 Management was obliged to hold
an enquiry in case a workman stopped attending his duties. In the present case it is
neither the pleadings nor the evidence tendered by the Management to show that
any such enquiry was ever held.