Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.44 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981
15.In Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics
Page 13
C/SCA/95/2015 JUDGMENT
Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 225, it is said by this Court that before
a workman can claim retrenchment not being in consonance of
section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, he has to show
that he has been in continuous service of not less than one
year with the employer who had retrenched him from service.
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
16.In Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25
Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005
In this context, a profitable reference can
be had to the observation by Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v.
Dahyabhai Amarsinh (supra) wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court observed, inter alia, that:-
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs Siri Niwas on 6 September, 2004
17. More recently, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills
Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2004) 8 SCC 161,
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC
195 and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC 246,
this Court has reiterated the principle that the burden of
proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked
continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to
his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce
an evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum
of his being in employment of the employer.
M.P. Electricity Board vs Hariram on 27 September, 2004
17. More recently, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills
Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2004) 8 SCC 161,
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC
195 and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC 246,
this Court has reiterated the principle that the burden of
proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked
continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to
his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce
an evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum
of his being in employment of the employer.