Back
HIRDESH
Chief Municipal Officer, Dewas – Appellant
Versus
Zaheer Kansuri – Respondent
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the award dated 11.1.2019 passed in Case No.51/IDR/2017, whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent with full backwages.
2. It is stated that the petitioner has filed the present petition by assailing the order dated 11.1.2019 mainly on the ground that the private respondents have not discharged the initial burden placed upon them to prove his case that he worked for continuously for 240 days in a calendar year and in the absence of same, the trial court has shifted the burden on the petitioner to prove that private respondents had continuously worked with the petitioner for a period of more than 240 days.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of apex Court in the cases of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 (Para 5, 8, 9, 22 to 32) and Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002) reported in 3 SCC 25 (Para 3) to submit that the initial burden lies on the workman to prove his case and the same cannot be shifted to the employer to his detriment.
4. Counsel for the r
The initial burden of proof was on workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer was held to be erroneous.
The burden of proving 240 days of continuous service lies with the employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, affecting retrenchment rights.
The burden of proof lies with the workman to demonstrate completion of 240 days of service prior to termination, and failure to fulfill this requirement results in dismissal of claims.
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 no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, the Labour Court rightly shifted the burden on assertion by the petitioner that he is not fulfilling the definition of workman to lead evi....
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 workman must prove 240 days of service for employment claims; failure of the employer to provide required records supports that proof.
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
