Balarama vs The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor — 6/2021
Case under Industrial Disputes Act Section U/Sec.10-4A. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.
Ref.10.1.C.OF ID ACT
CNR: KAUP010000802021
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
6/2021
Filing Date
04-01-2021
Registration No
6/2021
Registration Date
18-01-2021
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI
Judge
507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balarama
Adv. NAGARAJ.K
Respondent(s)
The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor
Hearing History
Judge: 507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 17-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 07-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 30-01-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition was allowed. The tribunal accepted the petitioner's memo and directed the respondent-employer to lead evidence at the first instance to prove that the domestic enquiry conducted for the employee's termination was valid and proper. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that the burden of proof lies on management, not the employee, to establish the legality of domestic enquiry proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition was allowed. The tribunal accepted the petitioner's memo and directed the respondent-employer to lead evidence at the first instance to prove that the domestic enquiry conducted for the employee's termination was valid and proper. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that the burden of proof lies on management, not the employee, to establish the legality of domestic enquiry proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts