Back
N. V. ANJARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
MANNESMANN REXROTH (INDIA) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DIPAKBHAI MANILAL GOHEL – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi for Gandhi Law Associates for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Mukesh Rathod for the respondent-original petitioner.
2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is addressed to the judgment and order of learned single Judge dated 24.6.2021 In Miscellaneous Civil Application (for recall) No. 1 of 1990 in Special Civil Application No. 3760 of 2021 read with order dated 3.9.2021 passed upon the Note for Speaking-to-Minutes.
2.1 Learned single Judge entertained the review application against the judgment and order of learned single Judge dated 11.6.2019 which was an ex-parte judgment. As per the judgment and order dated 24.6.2021, the said Miscellaneous Civil Application for review came to be allowed. Learned single Judge dealt with the controversy on merits by recalling the ex-parte order earlier passed by learned single Judge. At the same time, impugned Special Civil Application No. 3760 of 2012 was allowed, holding in favor of the original petitioner.
3. The facts in the backdrop may be set out. By filing Special Civil Application No. 3760 of 2012, the petitioner workman challenged the judgment and award dated
The court upheld the reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits but denied backwages due to evidence of the workman's income.
The burden of proof of the employee's unemployment during the interregnum period lies with the employee, and the initial onus is on the employee to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed.....
Decision of the Labour Court in granting 20% back wages is in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case as well as it is legally sustainable. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the....
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
The employer bears the burden of proving that the worker was gainfully employed during the dispute period to deny back wages; failure to provide evidence supports the worker's claim to back wages.
An employer's right to lead evidence before a Labour Court following an invalid domestic enquiry is not automatic. It must be explicitly requested at an early stage, such as in the written statement.....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has a duty to grant the employer the opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges once the domestic inquiry is foun....
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
