THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER versus S.T. HADIMANI
The Tribunal erred in placing the onus on the Management without first determining, on the basis of cogent evidence, that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Mere affidavit is not sufficient proof; in absence of documentary evidence, the award is liable to be set aside.
- Parties
- Appellant: Range Forest Officer; Respondent: S.T. Hadimani
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court W.a. No. 3962 of 1999 and Award Dated 10th August, 1998
- Outcome
- Appeals disposed
- Legal Topics
- Termination of Services, Retrenchment Compensation, Burden of Proof, Proof of Working Days
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Range Forest Officer
Appellant
S.T. Hadimani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court W.a. No. 3962 of 1999 and Award Dated 10th August, 1998
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the workman worked for 240 days in the relevant year preceding termination
- 2 Whether affidavit alone is sufficient proof of having worked 240 days
- 3 On whom lies the burden of proof regarding 240 days' work before termination
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal erred in placing the onus on the Management without first determining, on the basis of cogent evidence, that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Mere affidavit is not sufficient proof; in absence of documentary evidence, the award is liable to be set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeals disposed
Orders
- Award set aside for lack of proof that workman worked 240 days
- Respondent to be given employment on compassionate grounds on same terms as earlier, within two months from today
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment