Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005
17. It is for claimant to lead evidence for discharging burden
of proof of continuous service for 240 days in the year preceding
his termination and mere affidavit tendered in evidence is not
sufficient to discharge the burden of 240 days of continuous
service as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Range
Forest Officer Vs. S.P. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25; Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195;
Surendernagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahiyabhai Amarsinh
(2005) 8 SCC 750; Manager, Reserve Bank of India Bangalore
Vs. S.Mani & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100; R.M. Yellatti Vs.
Assistant Executive Engineer (2006) SCC 106 AND Mohd. Ali
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 15 SCC 641.
Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 13 September, 2004
"More recently, in Rajasthan State
Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Another, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 161,
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri
Niwas, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 195 and M.P.
Electricity Board vs. Hariram, (2004) 8
S.C.C. 246, this Court has reiterated the
principal 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
Page No. 8/9
Shri Ram Gopal Vs. M/s Shri Ram Offset & Traders
LIR No. 8933/16
evidence apart from examining himself to
prove the factum of his being in employment
of the employer."
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs Siri Niwas on 6 September, 2004
"More recently, in Rajasthan State
Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Another, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 161,
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri
Niwas, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 195 and M.P.
Electricity Board vs. Hariram, (2004) 8
S.C.C. 246, this Court has reiterated the
principal 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
Page No. 8/9
Shri Ram Gopal Vs. M/s Shri Ram Offset & Traders
LIR No. 8933/16
evidence apart from examining himself to
prove the factum of his being in employment
of the employer."
Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani on 15 February, 2002
"It was the case of the workman that he had
worked for more than 240 days in the year
concerned. This claim was denied by the
appellant. It was for the claimant to lead
evidence to show that he had in fact worked
up to 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is
only his own statement which is in his favour
and that cannot be regarded as sufficient
evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to
Page No. 7/9
Shri Ram Gopal Vs. M/s Shri Ram Offset & Traders
LIR No. 8933/16
the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year. These aspects
were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v.
S.T. Hadimani. No proof of receipt of salary
or wages for 240 days or order or record in
that regard was produced. Mere non
production of the muster roll for a particular
period was not sufficient for the Labour Court
to hold that the workman had worked for 240
days as claimed."
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
17. It is for claimant to lead evidence for discharging burden
of proof of continuous service for 240 days in the year preceding
his termination and mere affidavit tendered in evidence is not
sufficient to discharge the burden of 240 days of continuous
service as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Range
Forest Officer Vs. S.P. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25; Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195;
Surendernagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahiyabhai Amarsinh
(2005) 8 SCC 750; Manager, Reserve Bank of India Bangalore
Vs. S.Mani & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100; R.M. Yellatti Vs.
Assistant Executive Engineer (2006) SCC 106 AND Mohd. Ali
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 15 SCC 641.
M.P. Electricity Board vs Hariram on 27 September, 2004
"More recently, in Rajasthan State
Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Another, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 161,
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri
Niwas, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 195 and M.P.
Electricity Board vs. Hariram, (2004) 8
S.C.C. 246, this Court has reiterated the
principal 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
Page No. 8/9
Shri Ram Gopal Vs. M/s Shri Ram Offset & Traders
LIR No. 8933/16
evidence apart from examining himself to
prove the factum of his being in employment
of the employer."