Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mahavir Singh vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors. on 27 April, 1998
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Mahavir Singh vs.
U.P.Electricity Board & Others 1999 (IX) SCC 178 (Supreme Court)
mainly to the effect that awarding of 50% of back wages towards
settlement of all claims of the workman was justified in that case.
P.G.I.Of M.E. & Research, Chandigarh vs Raj Kumar on 2 November, 2000
In P.G.I of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh vs. Raj
Kumar & Others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 479, the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed that a discretion was available to an Industrial Tribunal in
the matter of grant of back wages and such discretion was to be
excercised in a judicial and judicious manner depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case.
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 27 February, 2003
In Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar,
AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1843, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
awarded one time lumpsum compensation to the workman towards full
and final settlement of all his claims.
Uco Bank vs Presiding Officer & Another on 30 August, 1999
In para 13 of this judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held mainly
to the effect that principles regarding burden of proof are stipulated in
Chapter VII of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short Evidence Act) and
that Sections 101 to 114 A of Evidence Act were relevant on this aspect
and it was further held in this judgment that the General Principal, which
is laid down in these Sections, particularly under Sections 101 and 102 of
Evidence Act, was that he who asserts must prove i.e. the burden of proof
is the obligation to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or
Court to establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact contended to by
a party. It was further held in this judgment that the 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
ID No.199/07(old), 122/09(new) Page 6 of 12
incapable of proof.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Prem Dayal vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 17 November, 2004
In coming to the above conclusion, I also find support from the
judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in the case of Rameshwar
Dayal vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court No. VI, Delhi & Another
2007 (3) LLJ 729 (Delhi High Court). In this judgement, the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that a lumpsum amount of Rs.
50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement
and back wages towards full and final settlement of all claims of the
workman was an appropriate relief.