Madhukar vs The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor — 12/2021
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: KAUP010000862021
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
12/2021
Filing Date
04-01-2021
Registration No
12/2021
Registration Date
19-01-2021
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI
Judge
507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Madhukar
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, Udupi, accepted the petitioner's memo and held that the burden of proof lies on the employer (respondent) to demonstrate that the domestic enquiry was conducted validly and properly. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Kurukshethra University v. Pruthvi Singh (2018), the court directed the respondent to lead evidence at the first instance to prove the domestic enquiry's validity, rejecting the respondent's contention that the burden was on the petitioner to challenge its legality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Principal District Judge, Udupi, accepted the petitioner's memo and held that the burden of proof lies on the employer (respondent) to demonstrate that the domestic enquiry was conducted validly and properly. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Kurukshethra University v. Pruthvi Singh (2018), the court directed the respondent to lead evidence at the first instance to prove the domestic enquiry's validity, rejecting the respondent's contention that the burden was on the petitioner to challenge its legality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts