Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.62 seconds)Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ... vs Central Organisation Of Tamil Nadu ... on 24 March, 2005
Although the said judgment was passed in a case challenging
the order of Employee's Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, the
observations made therein are relevant in the present case, since it has
been clearly held in the said case that "casual employee" employed even
for one day or for more than one day or in connection with the work of
the establishment against wages would not be excluded from the coverage
of the act. Thus, the fact that the workman herein is holding an ESI card
by itself does not give rise to conclusion that he was a regular employee of
the management who had worked for a period of 240 days prior to
termination of his services by the management.
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
The workman has only filed his affidavit, which replicates his
statement of claim and hence, cannot be considered as sufficient evidence
in view of the case law titled as Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani
II (2002) SLT, 154.
1