Deepak Sarkar v. Dawda Brotehrs And ORS.
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
(9 2) Suresh Laxmi Das, P.O.
Through:
Jam '
Its Manager, Thmugh:
Associate Its Cement General ManagPr Company, P.O. Jamul Tehs'
Ccment Works, Jamul Chhattisgarh.
District - Durg,
i) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF Ju§TICE Writ Petition No. 5069 of 2005 PETITIONER Deepak Sarkar
Versus
RESPONDENTS "
U2 w ,E .....
NDERARTmmE22ag CONsnTUHON OFWDM) 2.
Learned Counsel Petitioner éubmits that both ihe Labour Court and the Industrial Court did not properly appreciate that Respondent No.2 in fact had more than 100 persons working on its Roiis evident from letter dated 14.6.1988 along with enclosures.
The Madhya Pradesh industrial Relations Act, wasrtherefore clearly applicable and both the Labour Court as also industrial Court erred non-suiting Petitioner on
C 3 WP 5069/2005 ground that he had not been able to demonstrate that more than 100 persons were working in the Establishment. 3.
Learned Counsel Respondent No.3 submits that communication dated 14.6.1988, pertains tothe erstwhiie employer whose truck along with the Driver is supposed to have been taken over by Respondent No.2.
4.
Having considered the s b "'
_ river with Respondent No.1.
The T employment of .
While on duty he is alleged to R .2 f have indulged activities leading to a criminal prosecution in wh n acquittal on benefit of doUbt and i not on merits.
5.
if the Petitioneymlovcem Labour Court and an objection was \ taken with regard to applicability of the Madhya Pradesh industrial Relations Act due to non availability of at least 100 workers in the Establishment as required under the Act, the onus was clearly on the Petitioner to demonstrate the fact which he admittedly failed to do before two forums.
The question whether persons were employed or not was a pure question of fact.
Whether it be his acquittal for involvement in a criminal prosecution based on benefit of doubt and the discretion of the employer to take back such a
0m"
WP 5069/2005 person service or not coupled with his failure to discharge the onus appiicabiiity of Act, Court finds no reason to interfere with impugned orders of the Labour Court and industrial Court.
6.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
SdlI Acting Chief Justlce