Central Glass Industries Ltd. vs Abdul Hossain on 2 April, 1947
6. in Central Glass Industries Ltd. v. Abdul Hussain A.I.R. 1948 Cal. 12, another Division Bench of this Court observed:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. vs Bai Valu Raja And Ors. on 28 April, 1958
In Saurashtra Salt Manufacture Co. v. Bai Velu Raja and Ors. , the Court observed as follows:
Gouri Kinkar Bhakat vs Radha Kissen Cotton Mills on 4 August, 1932
In Gouri Kinkar v. Radha Kissen Cotton Mills A.I.R. 1933 Cal.
P.S.P. Piranmalai Rowther And Anr. vs S.P.N.M. Mohamed Ibrahim Rowther And ... on 14 October, 1935
11. The learned Commissioner in respect of issue No. 2 has hold that the applicant was the widow of the deceased and was to be presumed to be dependent on the deceased and the relevant issue No. 2 was accordingly decided in favour of the applicant. The learned Commissioner has further found that the accident happened within the very premises of the employer who must be presumed to have knowledge of the accident. The issue No. 3 on service of notice of the accident was also decided in favour of the applicant. These findings are affirmed by us. On the issue No. 1 a point was raised by Mr. Ganguli, learned Counsel for the respondents employer contending that the onus of proof in respect of the death of the workman within the premises was not duly discharged by the applicant. In the written statement death of the workman was admitted, bat it was suggested that death was due to inter union rivalry and real facto might be known from records of Jamuria Police Station. No attempt was made by the employer to produce relevant records to prove hi specific defence and on the other hand the compounded of its dispensary was produced who was not the competent person to state in evidence about the relevant tact. On the question of burden of proof, in oooo Mucknnon Mackenzte & Co. P. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mohammad , the Court observed:
1