Court purview on genuinity of evidences,interim relief u/s 10(4) and u/s 33 c(2)
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 18 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
During a four year old labour case of illegal
termination certain emails and photocopies of
documents were procured by a terminated
employee with the help of his working colleagues.
In these emails/documents employees were
entitled for certain benefits. These
evidences(photocopies) were submitted by him
and during his cross the lawyer from
management side never asked any questions on
these documents.
Later on when management filed their evidence
affidavit they only admitted that emails seems to
be record of company but other documents
submitted by employee are manipulated or
irrelavent.
My queries for experts is :
1) How court will decide that the documents
submitted by employee are genuine as
management is not accepting them since in that
case they will be proved guilty for not paying his
all dues as per employee welfare scheme
announced earlier by them?
2) Whether his claim that they are infact
photocopies of original and his proof is genuine
since employees of his level were given those
benefit earlier will be dismissed by court ?
3) Since the case is already going on and 4 years
have passed can the employee submit a simple
hand written application to the PO that he be
given interim relief u/s 10(4) for 50% wages on
the grounds that as he is unemployed and his
savings have exhausted now,it is extremely
difficult for him to support his family consisting
of his unemployed wife and two school going
childrens studying in public school
4) Can he also file a direct application to PO of
his case to take action against management u/s
33C(2) for not paying his pre existing benefits the
proof of which he has submitted and the
management never crossed him on this proof.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 18 January 2012
1. It is the duty of the employee to get the documents proved by summoning the official record of the management while his evidence. The court shall take into consideration only proved documents.
2. Same as replied above.
3. No. This shall be taken as against the employee. No one has obstructed him to earn his livelihood from other sources and even working may not be regularly.
4. He can do so in a separate proceeding.
