Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.23 seconds)Section 40 in Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
M.L.Kamra vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director.New ... on 17 January, 1992
21. I am afraid I cannot agree with this submission. The validity of Section 40(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 did not arise for consideration before this Court nor is there any challenge thereto in the present writ petition. It is well settled that there is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of statutes and till such a provision is declared, by constitutional courts, to be ultra vires it remains valid and enforceable (M.L. Kamra v. New India Assurance Co. ). Since Section 40(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 has not been so invalidated, the order of the first respondent in directing payment of two months wages under Section 40(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act on its finding that the services of the workman had been illegally terminated, cannot be said to be invalid. The question which remains to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the services of the workman had been illegally terminated. There is substantial force in the contention of Sri A K Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that initial burden lies on the workman to establish that his services were terminated and that it was not open to the Tribunal to thrust the initial burden in this regard on the employer.
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs Siri Niwas on 6 September, 2004
This judgment in Siri Niwas case was followed in M.P Electricity Board (8 supra) wherein the Supreme Court drew adverse inference and held that the workman had not discharged the burden of establishing the fact that he had worked for 240 days and that both the Tribunal and the High Court had erred in directing reinstatement of the workman.
M.P. Electricity Board vs Hariram on 27 September, 2004
In view of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court in Hadimani's case (9 supra), Sri Nivas's case (7 supra) and Hariram' case (8 supra), reliance can no longer be placed on a contrary view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Chandramma's case (11 supra). The Tribunal has clearly erred in placing this initial burden of proving that the workman's services had not been terminated and that he had abandoned service, on the Employer and in holding that the employer, despite possessing the best evidence i.e. the attendance register, had not chosen to produce it and therefore an adverse inference had to be drawn against the employer. Since the workman had failed to discharge the burden of establishing the fact, that his services had been terminated and that he had not abandoned service, and since this jurisdictional fact forms the foundation of the entire claim of the workman, the order of the Tribunal in M.P. No. 263/87 dated 11-6-1994 allowing the claim of the workman for a sum of RS. 7837/-, is liable to be set aside.
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
In view of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court in Hadimani's case (9 supra), Sri Nivas's case (7 supra) and Hariram' case (8 supra), reliance can no longer be placed on a contrary view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Chandramma's case (11 supra). The Tribunal has clearly erred in placing this initial burden of proving that the workman's services had not been terminated and that he had abandoned service, on the Employer and in holding that the employer, despite possessing the best evidence i.e. the attendance register, had not chosen to produce it and therefore an adverse inference had to be drawn against the employer. Since the workman had failed to discharge the burden of establishing the fact, that his services had been terminated and that he had not abandoned service, and since this jurisdictional fact forms the foundation of the entire claim of the workman, the order of the Tribunal in M.P. No. 263/87 dated 11-6-1994 allowing the claim of the workman for a sum of RS. 7837/-, is liable to be set aside.
H.D. Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 10 September, 1985
In H.D. Singh's case (10 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court drew an adverse inference against the management for its failure to produce the records, since the workman had wanted the relevant records to be filed. In the present case, however, no attempt was made by the workman even to have the relevant records, with the employer, summoned. While it was also open for the employer to produce evidence in support of its contention that the workman had abandoned service and that his services were not terminated, in the absence of the initial burden of establishing that his services had been terminated, not being discharged by the workman, this initial burden cannot be fastened on the Employer.
Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi vs West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 26 February, 1979
In this context reference may be made to the judgment of a Full Bench of five Judges of the Karnataka High Court in "Govindanaik v. West Patent Press Co. and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in "Vasant Tatoba Hargude v. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari wherein it has been held that if two decisions of the Supreme Court, on a question of law, cannot be reconciled and if both benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of judges, the latter of the two decisions should be followed by the High Court and other Courts.
Vasant Tatoba Hargude And Ors. vs Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari on 13 September, 1979
In this context reference may be made to the judgment of a Full Bench of five Judges of the Karnataka High Court in "Govindanaik v. West Patent Press Co. and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in "Vasant Tatoba Hargude v. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari wherein it has been held that if two decisions of the Supreme Court, on a question of law, cannot be reconciled and if both benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of judges, the latter of the two decisions should be followed by the High Court and other Courts.
Government Of A.P. And Ors. vs N.V. Choudary And Anr. on 8 October, 1993
Reference may also be made to a Full Bench of this Court in "Government of A.P. v. N.V. Choudary 1993(2) An. W.R. 430 wherein it was held that if the High Court is confronted with the judicial dicta and obiter dicta contained in two different judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Court is bound necessarily by the judicial dicta It is not, however, necessary to examine this aspect since the workman herein, except examining himself, in support of his plea that his services were terminated, neither produced any documentary evidence nor did he seek a direction to summon records including the muster rolls from the office of the employer, nor did he choose to examine any other witness, not even a co-employee, in support of his plea that his services had been terminated by the Employer. Initial burden of establishing his plea of termination undoubtedly lies on the person who approaches the Court seeking relief.