Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)
Sh. Shobh Nath vs M/S Ashok Hotel on 10 January, 2011 cites

Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002

The onus to prove this issue was not placed by my Ld. Predecessor on either party. However, as per provisions of Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act and as per authority reported as RANGE FOREST OFFICER VS. ST HADIMANI, AIR 2002, SC 1147, the onus was to be discharged by the workman. On behalf of the workman, it has been submitted by Ld. AR that the workman had proved on record the I. Card issued by the management no. 1. The workman has relied on documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/8. His testimony has been corroborated by WW2 who has relied on documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/3 as well as Ex. WW1/2A and Ex. WW1/4 and testimony of both these witnesses has fully proved on record that the workman was employee of management no. 1. He also submitted that MW1 has failed to produce the summoned record and therefore his testimony cannot be read in evidence and an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the management. He also submitted that the management no. 1 failed to produce the certificate of registration and no licence has been produced by the management no. 2. As per Section 10 of the Contract Labour Regulation Act, the employment of LIR D No. 892/06 Page 7 of 19 pages the workman by the management was prohibited and any such employment has to be treated as sham and camouflage. As per section 3 of the said Act there was no provision of employment of the claimant through the Contractor. The nature of job performed by the workman was of perennial nature and his service could not have been terminated as such he should be deemed to be an employee of management no. 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1118 - Full Document

Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors on 6 November, 1996

In my considered view, no adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the management no. 1 for non production of the summoned record because the workman has admitted his signatures on documents Ex. WW1/MX1 to Ex. WW1/MX3 including the letter of appointment for the post of Cashier dt. 14-7-04. Ld. AR for workman has failed to prove on record any notification U/s 10 of CLRA prohibiting employment of cashier through the Contractor for the post of Cashier. Non filing of certificate of registration or licence referred by Ld. AR for workman does not make it mandatory that the employee so employed by the Contractor shall be deemed in employment of management no 1. Hon'ble Supreme court in authority reported as LIR D No. 892/06 Page 11 of 19 pages STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VS. N.U. WATERFRONT WORKERS (AIR 2001 SC 3527)" has quashed the notification covering the jobs which was upheld in AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. UNITED LABOUR UNION AND OTHERS, 1997 (9) SCC 377, in as much as it laid down the principle of automatic absorption which has also been overruled. It was also held that:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 118 - Cited by 420 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next