The main legal point established in this judgment is that the Equality Act 2010 provides protection against direct and indirect discrimination in employment, and the burden of proof can shift to the respondent if there are facts from which discrimination can be inferred.

Headnote:Keyword: Discrimination Subject: Employment Act-Section Referred: Equality Act 2010 - Section 13, Section 19, Section 39 Summary of Acts and Sections: - Equality Act 2010, Section 13: Prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs when someone is treated less favorably because of a protected characteristic. - Equality Act 2010, Section 19: Prohibits indirect discrimination, which occurs when a provision, criterion, or practice puts individuals with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage. - Equality Act 2010, Section 39: Provides for the burden of proof in discrimination cases, stating that if there are facts from which discrimination can be inferred, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove otherwise.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an employee who claimed that she was discriminated against by her employer due to her pregnancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employer had treated the employee less favorably due to her pregnancy, which constituted direct discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court relied on the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, specifically Sections 13 and 39, to establish that the burden of proof had shifted to the employer to prove that there was no discrimination. The court also considered the employee's protected characteristic (pregnancy) and the unfavorable treatment she received. Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of the employee, finding the employer liable for direct discrimination based on the employee's pregnancy.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The judgment primarily discusses the application of the Evidence Act, specifically Sections 63 and 65(a), in relation to the admissibility of secondary evidence, such as photocopies, in court proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Secondary evidence includes certified copies, copies made through mechanical processes ensuring accuracy, copies compared with the original, counterparts of documents, and oral accounts of a document’s contents (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The admissibility of secondary evidence depends on specific conditions, particularly when the original document is in the possession or control of the opposing party or is otherwise out of reach or not subject to court process. Proper notice must be given, and the non-production of the original must be justified under the circumstances outlined in Section 65(a) (!) .
The court emphasizes that secondary evidence is generally only admissible when the primary evidence (the original document) is unavailable, and the party seeking to introduce secondary evidence must satisfy the conditions laid out in the relevant sections (!) (!) .
In the case discussed, the court found that photocopies could not be admitted as secondary evidence because the necessary conditions—such as the original being in the possession of the opposing party and proper explanation for the absence of the original—were not satisfied (!) (!) .
The absence of proof that the original document was in the possession of the party offering the photocopy, along with the lack of explanation for its unavailability, led the court to uphold the decision that the

JUDGMENT:

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12625 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the civil revision petition filed. Challenge in the said petition was to the order dated 3.11.2003 in OS No. 30 of 1999 on the file of learned First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad wherein document Exh. B-1 to B-8 were marked and taken as secondary evidence. The challenge in the civil revision was that the aforesaid documents could not have been marked and taken as secondary evidence since they are photo copies.

Learned Single Judge held that the documents which were sought to be received and marked as secondary evidence are photo copies. It was noted that it may be a fact that the original of the documents are not available with the parties but at the same time the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Act) is that a document can be received as an evidence under the head of secondary evidence only when the copies made from or compared with the original are certified copies or such other documents as enumerated in the above section. The High Court found the photo copies can not be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of the Act and they ought not to have been received as secondary evidence. Since the documents in question were admittedly photo copies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals. Accordingly the Civil Revision was allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a rigid view has been taken by the High Court. The High Court could not have ignored the mandatory requirements as contemplated under Section 63 of the Act more specifically when the Section provides that when the copies made from the evidence can be adduced as secondary evidence. It was further submitted that the mandatory prescriptions in Section 65(a) of the Act have

been lost sight of.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court stating that the requirement of Section 65(a) have not been fulfilled in this case and the High Court rightly held that the documents could not have been accepted as secondary evidence.

In order to consider rival submissions it is necessary to take note of Sections 63 and 65 (a). Sections 63 and 65(a) reads as follows:

"63 : Secondary evidence Secondary evidence means and includes

(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies;

(3) copies made from or compared with the original;

(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:-

(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power- of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it."

Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. If the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party, who files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents.

Essentially, secondary evidence is an evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence which law requires to be given first, when a proper explanation of its absence is given. The definition in Section 63 is exhaust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 532

Supreme Court Of IndiaJ.Yashoda - AppellantVersusK.Shobha Rani - RespondentDecided On : 04/19/2007

The main legal point established in this judgment is that the Equality Act 2010 provides protection against direct and indirect discrimination in employment, and the burden of proof can shift to the respondent if there are facts from which discrimination can be inferred.

Supreme Court Of India
J.Yashoda - Appellant
Versus
K.Shobha Rani - Respondent
Decided On : 04/19/2007