Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22/11/1988 to 20/6/1994. This period is the period borne out the certificate (Ex. W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer the evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management produce five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex. M1, Ex. M2 and Ex. M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex. M4 and Ex. M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21/1/1994 to 20/2/1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour Court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7/6/2000 in writ petition No. 17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workmen are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workmen was working in SD 1, Athani and Ex. W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No. 1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex. W1 refers to the period 22/11/1988 to 20/6/1994, the workmen had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the Labour Court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workmen had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.
State Of Gujarat vs Ramesh Mopabhai Rathod on 6 August, 2003
Considering the fact that the Division Bench of this Court in cited decision of State of Gujarat v. Ramesh Mopabhai Rathod has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bank Of India (Supra) which is a superior court judgment, assuming that the same meaning is to be given to the judgment of the Division Bench in case of State of Gujarat v. Ramesh Mopabhai Rathod as suggested on behalf of the management, in that case also, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same is not required to be considered treating it as per incuriam.