Rama vs The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor — 7/2021
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: KAUP010000812021
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
7/2021
Filing Date
04-01-2021
Registration No
7/2021
Registration Date
18-01-2021
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI
Judge
507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rama
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 Principal District Judge of Udupi accepted the petitioner's memo and held that the burden of proof lies on the employer (respondent) to demonstrate the validity and propriety of the domestic enquiry that led to the employee's termination. The court directed the respondent to lead evidence at the first instance to prove the domestic enquiry was valid and proper, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kurukshethra University vs. Pruthvi Singh (2018 4 SCC 483), which established that the validity of a domestic enquiry is a preliminary issue requiring management's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Principal District Judge of Udupi accepted the petitioner's memo and held that the burden of proof lies on the employer (respondent) to demonstrate the validity and propriety of the domestic enquiry that led to the employee's termination. The court directed the respondent to lead evidence at the first instance to prove the domestic enquiry was valid and proper, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kurukshethra University vs. Pruthvi Singh (2018 4 SCC 483), which established that the validity of a domestic enquiry is a preliminary issue requiring management's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts