Delhi District Court
Madho Ram Kataria vs M/S D.K Taneja And Associates on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1733/21
CNR No. DLCT13-003262-2021
Sh. Madho Ram Katariya
S/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal
R/o B-159, Pandav Nagar
Opposite Shadi Pur Depot
New Delhi-110008
Through
Sh. Tarsen Raj (President)
Delhi Mazdoor Sangh (Regd. 3595)
F-489, Karampura, New Delhi-110015
.....Workman
Vs
M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates
Through its partner
Sh. Devender Kumar Taneja and Ms. Neelam Taneja
R/o 241-B, MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden
Opposite Tagore Garden Metro Station
New Delhi-110027
....Management
Date of Institution of the case : 07.10.2021
Date of decision of the case : 14.03.2026
AWAR D
1.Vide Reference No. F.3(116)/21/Ref./wd/Lab./524 dated 28.09.2021 LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 1 the following Reference had been received for adjudication from Deputy Labour Commissioner, under Section 10 (1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Notification No. S-110011/2 /75/DK(IA) dated 14.04.1975 and Notification No. F.1/31/616/Estt./ 2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009 in respect of industrial dispute between the Workman and Management:
"Whether the services of Sh. Madho Ram Katariya S/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management during the phase-I of lockdown; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Notice of aforesaid Reference was issued to the Workman and after service of said notice, Statement of Claim was filed by workman. The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present matter, as stated in his Statement of Claim, are as follows:
i. That the workman had been working for the past 32 years as a Driver/Field Man with the management M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates (hereinafter referred as management) with great hard work and honesty and his last drawn salary was Rs. 18,000/- per month. The workman always performed his duties with honesty, hard labour and due diligence and never gave any chance of complaint to the management in any manner nor he was charge-sheeted by the management,, hence, the tenure of the workman with the management remained unblemished.
LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 2 ii. That the management was not providing the various legal facilities like attendance register, wages slip, leave book, bonus, joining letter, ESI, PF etc. despite oral demand of the workman. On demand of his legal rights as mentioned in the statement of claim the management on 23.03.2020 had illegally terminated the service of workman without giving any payment regarding the leave and bonus.
iii. Thereafter the workman visited several times to the office of the management with request to take him back on duty but management was adamant not to take back the workman on duty.
iv. That the workman had sent a demand letter dated 04.08.2020 to the management through registered AD / speed post thereby demanding his LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 3 reinstatement and unpaid dues but the management did not reply the same.
v. That the workman through union was constrained to file a complaint before Labour Commissioner, Karampura, New Delhi on 28.07.2020 and 28.10.2020 but the management neither reinstated the workman nor paid the dues.
vi. That the workman filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer at Karampura, New Delhi but due to adamant attitude of the management, the conciliation proceedings failed. Hence, this present Reference.
vi. That the workman is unemployed from the date of his illegal termination and despite his best efforts, he could not get the job elsewhere.
vii. It is prayed by the workman that he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 4 and continuity of his service along with all consequential benefits arising therefrom and unpaid dues.
3. DEFENCES:-
Notice of statement of claim was issued to management and management filed its written statement in which allegations leveled in the the statement of claim have been denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. In the written statement, the management raised following defences:
i. That the present claim is fraudulent, concocted for extracting money from a senior citizen. ii. That D.K. Taneja and Associates does not exist and Devender Kumar Taneja and Ms Neelam Taneja are not partners of said firm and workman was never employed by the management LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 5 iii. That D.K. Taneja and Associates mentioned as Management in the statement of claim, does not exist, and Devender Kumar Taneja and Ms Neelam Taneja are not partners of said firm, as stated in the Statement of claim. The statement of claim, in fact is an attempt to extort money from the Said alleged Managements.
iv. That there is no office at the address 241-B, MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, as mentioned in the Statement of claim.
v). That Entire Statement of claim, is fraudulent, concocted, for extracting money from a senior citizen of 74 years. The claim of said workman, therefore needs to be dismissed with cost. Rather that in the house of Mr. D.K. Taneja & Mrs. Neelam Taneja is wife of Mr. D.K. Taneja. That the present statement of claim has been filed on falsehood and deserves to be dismissed.
LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 6
vi). That the false claim filed by the claimant be dismissed with exemplary cost
4. To this Written Statement filed by the Management, the workman had also filed his rejoinder in which contents of the statement of claim have been reiterated and allegations levelled in the Written Statement have been denied.
5. ISSUES:
On the basis of reference and pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether there existed any relationship of employee-employer between the workman and management? OPW
2. Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW
3. Relief.
6. Matter was adjourned for workman's evidence but the workman despite opportunities did not lead any evidence, hence, vide order order dated 16.04.2024, the workman's evidence was closed.
7. Matter was adjourned for management's evidence but in view of statement of AR of management on 06.08.2024, management's evidence was also closed and matter was adjourned for final arguments.
LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 7
8. Final arguments advanced by AR of management but despite grant of opportunities, nobody has come forward from the side of workman to address final arguments. I have hearZd the arguments and perused the material available on record.
9. My issue-wise findings are as under: -
10. ISSUE NO.1:-
1. Whether there existed any relationship of employee-
employer between the workman and management? OPW The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the workman. It is well settled that obligation to lead evidence to establish the allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be who would fail if no evidence is led. The following extract of judgment of Hon'ble High of Delhi in case titled as Babu Ram vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. WP (c) 3570/2015 dated 13.02.2018 are worth quoting:
"10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankar Chakravarti (supra) has further held that obligation to lead evidence to establish the allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be who would fail if no evidence is led. It must seek an opportunity to lead evidence and lead evidence. In this regard Para 32 of the said judgment is also relevant to mention here, which reads as under: -
"32. If such be the duties' and functions of the Industrial Tribunal LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 8 or the Labour Court, any party appearing before it must make claim or demur the claim of the other side and when there is a burden upon it to prove or establish the fact so as to invite a decision in its favour, if it has to lead evidence. The quasi-judicial tribunal is not required to advise the party either about its rights or what it should do or omit to do. Obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be who would fail if no evidence is led. It must seek an opportunity to lead evidence and lead evidence.."
The conduct of the workman/claimant not to step into the witness box despite opportunities and depose on oath has proved fatal to his claim. Hence, it is held that the workman/claimant has failed to prove that there existed any relationship of employee-employer between him and the management. Thus, issue No. 1 is decided against the workman/claimant and in favour of the management.
10. ISSUE NO. 2:-
2. Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the workman/claimant.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the Court has already given its opinion that the workman/claimant has failed to prove that there existed any relationship of employee-employer between him and the management hence, question of illegal and/or unjustifiable termination of services of the workman/claimant by the management does not arise.
LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 9 Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the workman/claimant and in favour of the management.
11. RELIEF:-
Since the workman/claimant has failed to prove that his services have been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the management, therefore, it is held that the workman/claimant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him in his statement of claim and accordingly, his statement of claim is dismissed. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms. Copy of Award be sent to the Labour Commissioner for publication.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
on 14th March, 2026 (Rekha)
Presiding Officer Labour Court - 07
Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
Digitally
signed by
REKHA
REKHA Date:
2026.03.16
17:16:21
+0530
LIR No. 1733/21 Madho Ram Katariya vs. M/s D.K. Taneja & Associates Page 10