Peter Rodrigues vs The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor — 10/2021

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: KAUP010000842021

HEARING

Next Hearing

13th March 2026

Filing Number

10/2021

Filing Date

04-01-2021

Registration No

10/2021

Registration Date

19-01-2021

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI

Judge

507-Prl District and Sessions Judge

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act Section U/Sec.10-4A

Petitioner(s)

Peter Rodrigues

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

06-03-2026

HEARING

26-02-2026

HEARING

17-02-2026

HEARING

07-02-2026

ORDERS

30-01-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

15-07-2021
Issue
17-08-2021
Issue
22-07-2022
Orders

SUMMARY The petitioner's memo was accepted. The tribunal directed the respondent-employer to lead evidence first to prove that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was valid and proper, following Supreme Court precedent (Kurukshethra University v. Pruthvi Singh) which places the burden of proof on the management, not the employee. The validity of the domestic enquiry is a preliminary issue that must be decided at the first instance before considering the appropriateness of the termination sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The petitioner's memo was accepted. The tribunal directed the respondent-employer to lead evidence first to prove that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was valid and proper, following Supreme Court precedent (Kurukshethra University v. Pruthvi Singh) which places the burden of proof on the management, not the employee. The validity of the domestic enquiry is a preliminary issue that must be decided at the first instance before considering the appropriateness of the termination sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case