论劳动争议中的举证责任-@@专业论文.docx

PAGE PAGE 4 producing evidence concerning the labour dispute amongst the scholars. It is seconded that the doctrine “the party who claims shall produce the evidence and prove his claim” should serve as a general principle and the so-called doctrine “inversion of burden of proof ”( i. e., it is the party who refutes the counterpart’s claim shall produce the evidence and prove his own claim” ) should serve as an exception. Moreover, it is held by the author that it is necessary to specify the types of labour dispute applying the inversion of burden of proof in terms of protecting the labour’s rights and interests, in order to ensure this doctrine can be more easily manipulated. Part two: the regulations as to the burden of proof of labour dispute in Chinese existing legislations. During the period of nearly 20 years (that is, from the date of 9 April, 1991 when the Civil Procedural Law of PRC was promulgated to 14 September, 2010 when the Interpretation III as to Issues of Applying Act in the Adjudication of Labour Dispute of Supreme People’s Court was promulgated ), China has made a long-stride progress in the field of allocation of the liabilities of producing evidence concerning the labour dispute since it developed from the primary doctrine “the party who claims shall produce the evidence and prove his claim” to the doctrine of “inversion of burden of proof” subject to the situations, in doing so particularizing the issue of allocation thereof to secure the operability in judiciary profession. Part three: the defects and improvement of the system of allocation of the liabilities of producing evidence concerning the labour dispute. Meanwhile, we should realize soberly the regulations involved in the allocation thereof in China are far from consummation as yet, just like the lack of definite guidelines, the improper location of the general principle of “the party who claims shall produce the evidence and prove his claim”, etc., which needs restructuring the syste