Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 1484
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : N.P.GUPTA
RAMESH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT,Jodhpur - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT 4270 Of 2004
Decided On : 05/16/2006
B.L.Bhatia, VIJAY MEHTA
Headnote:
Burden of Proof - Labour Law - The court found that the petitioner failed to prove that he continued to work beyond the fixed period of appointment, as he did not produce the required evidence, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to have continued working after the expiry of the fixed period of appointment, but failed to provide evidence to support this claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not produce the necessary evidence to prove that he continued to work beyond the fixed period of appointment, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had continued to work beyond the fixed period of appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof was on the petitioner to demonstrate that he continued to work beyond the fixed period of appointment, and the failure to produce the required evidence led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed summarily due to the petitioner's failure to provide evidence supporting his claim of continued work beyond the fixed period of appointment.
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. The learned Labour Court has found that appointment of the petitioner was a fixed period of time, and he has been relieved on expiry of that period. The learned Labour Court has not believed the story of the petitioner about the petitioner having been allowed to work by oral orders even after expiry of the term, and that he had not been relieved on the expiry of the period as claimed by the employer.
( 2 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed application for summoning the record from the department, but then no orders had bee passed on that application.
( 3 ) I have perused the record, and find there-from that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the labour Court, in para-3, it was clearly deposed that even after 24. 10. 97, the work was taken from him upto 31. 8. 98, and that entries in that regard were made in the departmental records, originals whereof are with the department, but he has the photostat copies in his possession. Admittedly, no such photostat copies had been produced on record, and after filing of the application, as appears from the order-sheet that the application was never pressed.
( 4 ) IN that view of the matter, as propounded by honble the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas reported in 2004 (7) JT 248, and manager, R. B. I. Bangalore Vs. Mani reported in 2005 (3) JT 248, when the burden was on the petitioner to prove that he continued to work upto 31. 8. 98, and when admittedly the photostat copies of the record were in his possession, which had not been produced, in my view, it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court has gone wrong in passing the impugned award. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
