Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA, SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Orient Paper Mills – Appellant
Versus
Abhimanyu Behera – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the labour court award under article 226 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of workman's claims and termination details (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. management's defense and claims on evidentiary burdens (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 14 , 30) |
| 4. evidential requirements and adjudication process (Para 9 , 10 , 19) |
| 5. judicial review standards under article 227 (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29) |
| 6. final direction for enforcing labour court's award (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Management of Orient Paper Mills, Bhubaneswar, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 31.03.2018, passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000.
2. Vide the said award, learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, answered issue no.1 regarding termination of service of the Opposite Party-Workman by way of refusal of employment w.e.f 14.02.1999 to be illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, so far as issue No.2 regarding relief, it granted the relief of a lump sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only), to be paid to the Opposite Party-Workman within a peri
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
The termination of an employee without due process is illegal, and the burden of proof lies with the employer to substantiate claims of non-employment.
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 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 court determined that the tribunal misapplied the law regarding employment and erred in concluding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, necessitating the annulment of the reinstate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in cases of termination and retrenchment, and....
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.
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
