Back
HARSH BUNGER
Krishan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.
Petitioner (Krishan Kumar) has filed the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of impugned Award dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the reference regarding termination of services of petitioner-workman has been answered against the petitioner-workman.
2. Briefly, the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of his services. In the claim statement, the petitioner-workman claimed that he joined the services of Forest Department, Government of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-Management') in May, 1992 at Bichhiyan Forest Beat, Banpura Block, Saraswati Range and after the creation of DFO, Kaithal in year 1997 under the Forest Department, Kaithal, as a Labourer on daily wage basis for the work of preparing nurseries, making ridges for plantation of plant, watering the plants, weeding out the unnecessary plants, doing earth work, filling of polythene bags for sowing seeds etc. The petitioner-workman claimed that he continuously worked from May, 1992 in Bicchiayan Forest Beat upto 31.05.1994 at Thehmajbula Beat under
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.
The court upheld that the burden of proving continuous service and employee-employer relationship lies with the workman, which was not met, leading to dismissal of the claim based on delay and lack o....
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....
To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.”
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.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish continuous employment and violation of labor laws, and mere non-production of documents by the employer may not suffice to prove the claim.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
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 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.
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
