Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
24. Also, in the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 355 in the case of R.M.Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while analysing the various decisions of the Supreme Court, while applying the general principles and the burden of proof, has laid down a rule of law that the burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case.
Ramakrishna Ramnath vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 27 February, 1970
In the present case, as already noticed, the finding of the Labour Court is that the respondents worked for more than 240 days in each year from 1983 to 1986 but not having worked for 240 days in the year of termination, the termination was held by the Labour Court not to be violative of S.6-N. Reference may also be made to the decision in Ramakrishna Ramnath v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Nagpur, and another [(1970) 3 SCC 67] where this Court observed that the provision requiring an enquiry to be made to find out whether the workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment does not show that a workman after satisfying the test, has further to show that he has worked during all the period he has been in service of the employer for 240 days in the year. The interpretation propounded for the appellant is wholly untenable.
U. P. State Coop. Land Development Bank ... vs Taz Mulk Ansari on 11 October, 1993
The decision in U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Taz Mulk Ansari and others (1994 Supp (2) SCC 745) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant has no applicability since that was a case of Cl.(a) of S.6-N and, therefore, S.2 (g) had no relevance."