Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)R. Saravanan vs P.N.Peruvazhuthi on 10 November, 2009
5. The learned counsel further submitted that under Section 73 of the evidence act, the Court is entitled to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature on it's own. In stead of doing that, the Labour Court erroneously held the burden of proof was cast upon the petitioner management to prove the resignation letter. The Labour Court failed to take note of the submission of Form-10 to the Provident Fund Office and the same was marked by the petitioner as Ex.M.7. With regard to comparision of signatures the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of this Court in R.Saravanan Vs. P.N.Peruvazhuthi reported in 2009 (5) CTC 593 wherein it was held that the Court could resort to comparison recording the signatures and arrive at its own conclusion when other materials produced and evidence adduced are corroborative of such comparison. Relying on the said Judgment, the learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court could have resorted to comparison of the signature and without doing that the Labour Court gave finding against the petitioner. In nutshell the learned counsel submitted the award is contrary the evidence available on record and therefore sought for setting aside the award.
1