Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)
Mahak Singh Son Of Shri Peeru Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 15 April, 2005
cites
Section 2A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
M/S. U.P. Drugs & Pharmaceuticals ... vs Ramanuj Yadav & Ors on 23 September, 2003
16. It is settled law that the provision of 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 apply to the workman who have worked more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to their termination cannot be restricted to work immediately preceding the the of termination and will be deemed to be in continuous service. The present case is fully covered by the decision given in the case of U.P. Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd. v. Ramanuj Yadav and Ors., reported in 2003 (99), FLR, 331.
Suraj Pal Singh And Ors. vs P.O. Labour Court No. 111 And Anr. on 29 May, 2002
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Suraj Pal Singh v. P.O. Labour Court No. III (Del.
Section 3 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs Shri Badri Prasad And Ors. on 14 December, 1960
14. The respondents-employers having taken work from the workmen-petitioners of a permanent nature but allege to have engaged them to meet the causal and temporary requirement of work, without any evidence in support of the same amounts to unfair labour practice. This aspect of the matter has been criticized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd, Meerut v. Badari Prasad and Ors., reported in 1961 FLR, S.C. 83-85.
M/S Essen Deinki vs Rajiv Kumar on 29 October, 2002
The case of Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, reported in 2002 (95) FLR, S.C., 949-953. are also not applicable to the present set of facts and so also the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd and Ors. v. Awdesh Singh and Ors., reported in 1993 (67) FLR Alld.
Airtech Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Committee And ... on 6 May, 1997
High Court, 602-604, as the said cases had been filed directly before this court under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India instead of getting the dispute resolved by the labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and also in the case of Airtech Private Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 1984 (49) FLR, 38-85, wherein the Labour Court had placed the burden of proof on the employer directing him to lead the evidence first was set aside as per the rules of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957. It is imperative upon the workmen to file an affidavit in support of his written statement. This affidavit constitutes the preliminary evidence, if the employer does not care to controvert the averments made in the affidavit nothing further needs to be proved or done by the workmen. The labour court was duty bound to accept the averments contained in the affidavit and give its decision or award accepting the averments made in the affidavit and give its decision or award accepting the averments made in the affidavit as correct. This provision indicates the burden of proving the case lies on the workman referred to labour court in adjudication by the Government. It is settled law that the burden of proof never shifts, it is onus which keeps on shifting from stage to stage. In the present set of cases, the workmen had discharged their continuous working since 1991 to 1995 and the onus was on the employer to have proved otherwise by producing the entire record for the period 1991 to 1995 which it failed. The onus had shifted on the employer.
1