Back
GAURANG KANTH
Narender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Mgmt. of M/s Maman Chand Ramji Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the award dated 16.07.2004 ("the impugned award") passed by the learned Labour Court Karkardooma, Delhi in Industrial Dispute No. 1495/1997. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court adjudicated the dispute in favour of the Respondent and held that the Petitioner failed to prove that he was under the employment of the Respondent. Learned Labour Court further considered the fact that the Petitioner worked at the premises of the Respondent for 11 years and hence he is entitled to get an amount of 10 months' salary amounting to Rs.33,500/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.35,000/- in the impugned Award) towards his full and final settlement. Learned Labour Court noted that the Respondent already paid Rs.16,000/- and hence directed the Respondent to pay the Petitioner a balance of Rs.17,500/- (Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Rupees) towards his full and final settlement.
2. The Respondent/Management complied with the impugned Award and made the payment of Rs.17,500/- to the Petitioner vide cheque dated 04.08.2007 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish employment status, and expert opinions based on xerox copies may be deemed unreliable.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
The finality of the Labour Court's findings and the limited scope of re-appreciating evidence in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the contents of documents by primary evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 61 and 65 of the Evidence Act.
The burden of proving the employer-employee relationship lies on the workman, and the court cannot interfere with the Labour Court's findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
Termination without valid reason and entitlement of wages for muster roll employees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
