THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER versus S.T. HADIMANI

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the workman worked for 240 days in the relevant year preceding termination
  2. 2 Whether affidavit alone is sufficient proof of having worked 240 days
  3. 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