Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.49 seconds)Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
12. Sri Ranjit Saxena, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on
JT 2002(2) SC-238, The Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani and submits that the burden of proof is on the workman to prove that he had rendered continuous service of 240 days in a year preceding to his termination.
Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore vs S. Mani & Ors on 14 March, 2005
13. The facts of Manager, R.B.I. Bangalore's case are clearly distinguishable to the facts of the instant case. The employers have admitted in para 5 of their rejoinder statement that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service . It is also apparent from the record that they had not given any evidence in support of their case that the workman had not worked 240 days in any of the other preceding years. The workman has discharged the burden of proof by giving evidence before the Labour Court that he had continuously worked in the petitioner's establishment and had completed 240 days.
Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981
In Mohan Lal v. The Management of Bharat Electronics, Ltd., AIR 1981 Supreme Court-1253 it has been held that an employee must work for 240 days in any of the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination of service. Law is well settled that it is not necessary for the workman to complete 240 days in the preceding year and since the respondent workman had completed 240 days in the earlier years preceding to 12 months on the date of termination, hence he was deemed to be in a continuous service and his termination in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. I.D. Act was illegal. In the instant case, the workman has completed 240 days of continuous service in the earlier years. The employers had also not cross-examined the statement of the workman given before the Labour Court, rather they have admitted that he had worked 240 days.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 6N in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Samishta Dube vs City Board, Etawah And Anr on 26 February, 1999
11. It appears from perusal of the impugned award that the workman had given his evidence on 8.10.90 before the Labour Court. On that date, no one had appeared on behalf of the employers nor the workman had been cross-examined by the employers on subsequent dates. The employers continued to remain absent till the date of filing of the rejoinder statement i.e. 2.12.98 and they did not participate in any of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has given a categorical finding of fact on the basis of pleadings and evidence in paragraph 10 of the judgment that the respondent workman was a Muster Roll employee working in the petitioner's establishment from January, 1988 to December, 1998 and had completed 240 days of continuous service. Relying upon
1999 Lab.I.C. 1125, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah and Anr. it was held that the termination of the workman was illegal and in violation of provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
1