Working For 240 days, Workmen Should Prove And Not Employer; Rajasthan HC Upholds Workman's Termination
20 Dec 2024 12:30 PM
Why is termination simpliciter applied within 240 days of dismissal?
Are there any valid reasons for termination simpliciter being applied within 240 days of dismissal?
How many employers provide records to employees after litigation starts?
No other supportive evidence or record
has been produced by the petitioner nor any efforts were made to
summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register,
wages register etc. from the respondents have been made by the
petitioner, hence, in such circumstances, plea of counsel for
petitioner to draw an adverse inference against the respondent for
non-production of the record cannot be accepted. ?
VOIP - Voice of Information Technology Professionals
@9444764983
A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that an adverse inference can't be drawn against employer for non-production of record against workman's service period, it is upon the workman to prove their service period of 240 days preceding termination of service.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the onus to prove his case lies upon the workman. Further that the workman did not produce any supportive evidence or record to prove his working for 240 days in a year
It was observed by the court that since the workman has only produced his self-serving affidavit in support of his claim which too has been countered from the side of respondents. No other supportive evidence or record has been produced by the petitioner nor any efforts were made to summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register, wages register etc. from the respondents.
Therefore it was held by the court that an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the respondent for non-production of the record. It was further held by the court that the findings of the Labour Court were based on appreciation of evidence. Therefore the impugned order was not interfered by the High Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case No. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2016
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ritesh Kumawat for Abdul Kalam Khan
Counsel for the Respondents : N/A
Click Here To Read/Download The Order
https://www.livelaw.in/labour-service/working-for-240-days-workmen-should-prove-not-employer-rajasthan-hc-upholds-workmans-termination-278952
https://www.facebook.com/share/WuXzxCFmikEmUak8/
From India, Chennai
120 Dec 2024 12:30 PM
Why is termination simpliciter applied within 240 days of dismissal?
Are there any valid reasons for termination simpliciter being applied within 240 days of dismissal?
How many employers provide records to employees after litigation starts?
No other supportive evidence or record
has been produced by the petitioner nor any efforts were made to
summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register,
wages register etc. from the respondents have been made by the
petitioner, hence, in such circumstances, plea of counsel for
petitioner to draw an adverse inference against the respondent for
non-production of the record cannot be accepted. ?
VOIP - Voice of Information Technology Professionals
@9444764983
A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that an adverse inference can't be drawn against employer for non-production of record against workman's service period, it is upon the workman to prove their service period of 240 days preceding termination of service.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the onus to prove his case lies upon the workman. Further that the workman did not produce any supportive evidence or record to prove his working for 240 days in a year
It was observed by the court that since the workman has only produced his self-serving affidavit in support of his claim which too has been countered from the side of respondents. No other supportive evidence or record has been produced by the petitioner nor any efforts were made to summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register, wages register etc. from the respondents.
Therefore it was held by the court that an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the respondent for non-production of the record. It was further held by the court that the findings of the Labour Court were based on appreciation of evidence. Therefore the impugned order was not interfered by the High Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case No. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2016
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ritesh Kumawat for Abdul Kalam Khan
Counsel for the Respondents : N/A
Click Here To Read/Download The Order
https://www.livelaw.in/labour-service/working-for-240-days-workmen-should-prove-not-employer-rajasthan-hc-upholds-workmans-termination-278952
https://www.facebook.com/share/WuXzxCFmikEmUak8/
From India, Chennai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Madras HC judg regarding gratuity is applicable if workmen is working 4 years 240 days..pdf