Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Anoop Sharma vs Exec.Eng.Pub.Health Division ... on 9 April, 2010
In Anoop Sharma v. Public Health Division8 the Court considered the effect of violation of Section 25-F, referred to various precedents on the subject and held the termination of service of a workman without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 25-F(a) and (b) should ordinarily result in his reinstatement.
Dir.,Fisheries Terminal Division vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda on 9 November, 2009
(iv) (2010 (1) SCC 47 ((Director, Fisheries Terminal Department vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda), wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
16. This Court in R.M. Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer2 has observed: (SCC p. 116, para 17)
17. However, applying general principles and on reading the [aforesaid] judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This 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 earners, 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 (the 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 the facts of each case.
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
(v) 2010 3 SCC 192 (Harjinder Singh vs Punjab Sttae Warehousing Corporation), wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows:
National Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 January, 1967
19. The question whether the offer to pay wages in lieu of one months notice and retrenchment compensation in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F must accompany the letter of termination of service by way of retrenchment or is it sufficient that the employer should make a tangible offer to pay the amount of wages and compensation to the workman before he is asked to go was considered in National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of W.B.24 The facts of that case were that the workman was given notice dated 15-11-1958 for termination of his service with effect from 17-11-1958. In the notice, it was mentioned that the workman would get one months wages in lieu of notice and he was asked to collect his dues from the cash office on 20-11-1958 or thereafter during the working hours. The argument of the Additional Solicitor General that there was sufficient compliance with Section 25-F was rejected by this Court by making the following observations: (AIR p. 1210, para 9).