Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.50 seconds)Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005
As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Surendranagar District Panchayat
(supra), adverse inference against the
employer could have been drawn only when
seniority list was proved to be in existence
and not produced before the Court.
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
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.