Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.61 seconds)Section 2A in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat & Ors on 5 April, 2007
35. The appellant‟s right to access to justice has caused him to suffer
worse consequences, than the appellant has been subjected to,
pursuant to the order which it has been aggrieved about and
challenged. The Supreme Court in Bhagubhai Dhnabhai Khalasi
(supra) has held that a party having a grievance must have a
remedy; that access to justice is a human right; that when there
exists such a right a disputant must have a remedy in terms of the
doctrine ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is right there is remedy);
that the appellant could not have been placed in a worse position.
Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd vs Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh on 1 August, 1986
13. Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned senior counsel has submitted that
the test of entitlement of continuous service is that of "actually
worked" and it cannot be given any notional effect. He says that
admittedly, from the date of induction that is, March 31, 1980 to
December 10, 1995, the appellant was a Badli worker in the jute
mill. That, in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders, a Badli
worker is classified as to have no claim of permanence or
regularization in employment, but to be given job on the date when
permanent workman might not have attended their duties; a job of
a Badli worker is not a time-bound or tenure based job; it is purely
contingent in nature. With reference to a Supreme Court judgment
in Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor
Sangh reported in 1986 (53) FLR 310, the appellant says that a
badly worker has no guaranteed service, but his engagement is
purely contingent in nature. He submits that, since from the date of
his regularization in service on and from December 10, 1995, the
respondent/workman has not discharged duties for 240 days or
more in the years 2000, 2002 to 2005. In support thereof, the
employer company/appellant has submitted relevant leave registers
Page 10 of 28
before the fact finding authority. According to the appellant, the
same amounts to "some evidence" presented by the
appellant/company in support of its contentions before the said
Authority.
S.R.Tewari vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2013
31. The respondent‟s proof of his contention as regards the period of
his „continuous service‟, appears to have been discharged, he
having pleaded and shown that he has been in employment with
the appellant/company till July 23, 2013 and no counter, having
been brought on record by the present appellant, to suggest that
the master-servant relationship between them has severed
anywhere in the meantime. The law now is well settled that the
burden of proof rests upon the person who claims, can hardly be
ignored. The proposition is upheld by the Supreme Court, in the
judgments of Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad (supra), S.T.Harimani
(supra) and the Ganges Manufacturing Company (supra), as
referred to by the appellant. However, in the particular factual
background of the instant case those are not found to be
applicable for the reasons that the workman‟s contentions have
emerged as proved only incontrovertibly, due to the reasons as
discussed above. The Court finds that the Appellate Authority as
well as the Hon‟ble Single Judge has thus come to the findings
that the respondent/workman has been in „continuous service‟
with the appellant/company not erroneously but only applying the
right proposition of the law. It has been rightly noted that there is
no contrary fact proved to dislodge the claim of the respondent,
rather the same has been admitted by the appellant by admission
of the fact that he has been indeed allowed to be engaged with the
appellant/company, till the date of his superannuation.
Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad vs Gangaram Narayan Ambekar on 6 May, 2020
31. The respondent‟s proof of his contention as regards the period of
his „continuous service‟, appears to have been discharged, he
having pleaded and shown that he has been in employment with
the appellant/company till July 23, 2013 and no counter, having
been brought on record by the present appellant, to suggest that
the master-servant relationship between them has severed
anywhere in the meantime. The law now is well settled that the
burden of proof rests upon the person who claims, can hardly be
ignored. The proposition is upheld by the Supreme Court, in the
judgments of Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad (supra), S.T.Harimani
(supra) and the Ganges Manufacturing Company (supra), as
referred to by the appellant. However, in the particular factual
background of the instant case those are not found to be
applicable for the reasons that the workman‟s contentions have
emerged as proved only incontrovertibly, due to the reasons as
discussed above. The Court finds that the Appellate Authority as
well as the Hon‟ble Single Judge has thus come to the findings
that the respondent/workman has been in „continuous service‟
with the appellant/company not erroneously but only applying the
right proposition of the law. It has been rightly noted that there is
no contrary fact proved to dislodge the claim of the respondent,
rather the same has been admitted by the appellant by admission
of the fact that he has been indeed allowed to be engaged with the
appellant/company, till the date of his superannuation.
Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 February, 2014
iv) Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal
and Others reported at 2014 (II) LLJ 74: 2014 SCC OnLine Cal
4758.
M/S. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., Calcutta vs Its Workmen on 3 March, 1961
28. So far as continuity in service or as to what should be construed
as a „continuous service‟, the Supreme Court has held in the cases
in (i) Budge Budge Municipality vs P.R.Mukherjee [AIR 1953 SC
58] and (ii) M/s. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., Calcutta vs Its
Workmen [1961 AIR(SC) 1567], that the words "continuous
service" in the award meant service not broken or interrupted by
the termination of the contract of employment by either the
employer or the employee or by operation of law. The Court found
that the employee's unauthorized absence from work for a period
of 8 and 1/2 months did not amount to a break in service, as it
did not indicate an intention to abandon his employment. The
Court held that the continuity of service is disrupted when the
Page 19 of 28
relationship of master and servant is terminated by resignation,
termination by the employer, or by operation of law. However,
mere participation in an illegal strike (not concerned in this
appeal) or unauthorized absence from work does not necessarily
cause a break in continuity, unless it is of such a long duration
that it can be reasonably inferred that the employee intended to
abandon their service.