Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Punjab State Electricity Board vs Darbara Singh on 5 May, 2010

IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
         COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new)
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0440032004

BETWEEN THE WORKMEN
Sh. Suresh Chand & others, C/o All India Engineering & General Mazdoor
Union, E­127, Karampura, Delhi - 15.

AND THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s. World Fashion, G­4, Lawrence Road, Delhi.

       Date of Institution                            : 23.07.1998
       Date on which award reserved                   : 05.05.2010
       Date of passing of award                       : 05.05.2010

                                          AWARD 
1.

The Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication to this Labour Court vide notification No. F. 24(2959)/ 98­Lab./23056­60 dated: 14.07.1998 with the following terms of reference.

"Whether the services of S/Sh. Suresh Chand, Sh. Ranjeet Kumar, Sh. Rajesh, Sh. Gopal Mehto, Sh. Naresh,Sh. Santosh and Sh. Sanjay Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so,to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

2. A joint statement of claim has been filed in this case on behalf of 07 workmen namely S/Sh. Suresh Chand, Sh. Ranjeet Kumar, Sh. Rajesh, Sh. Gopal Mehto, Sh. Naresh,Sh. Santosh and Sh. Sanjay Kumar. The main submissions of these workmen in their joint statement of claim are to the effect that they had been working with the management regularly and sincerely at various posts, for various periods, drawing various wages etc. as mentioned in detail in para 2 of their joint statement of claim; that they did not give any chance of any complaint to the management during the tenures of their services; that they were not provided any legal ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new) Page 1 of 9 facilities by the management from time to time; that when they made demands for certain legal facilities due to them from the management, it became annoyed and illegally terminated their services w.e.f. 30.06.1997 without any justified reasons; that they had served legal demand notice upon the management on 28.07.1997 but the same was not accepted; that their services had been terminated by the management in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short called as I.D. Act). Lastly, a prayer was made for their reinstatements with full back wages and all other consequential benefits as per law.

3. The averments of statement of claim were strongly denied in the written statement (in short WS) filed on behalf of the management. It has been mentioned in the WS, inter­alia, that the present claim has been field by the seven claimants but it has been signed by only two workmen namely S/Sh. Naresh and Santosh; that none of them worked for 240 days with the management; that they were appointed purely on temporary and adhoc basis for limited periods; that none of them was ever a regular employee of the management at any point of time; that whatever was due to them till they actually worked with the management, the same was paid to them as per rules; that they had resorted to sudden unauthorised absence from their duties in order to extract some money from the management and to abuse the process of law; that they were not entitled to any relief from the management. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss their statement of claim.

4. In the rejoinder filed by the workmen, the averments of statement of claim were reiterated and those of WS were denied.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed initially on 08.11.2001:­

1. Whether the correct name of management is M/s.

World Fashion and if so, to what effect? OPM

2. Whether the workmen have been absenting from their duties and if so, to what effect? OPM

3. As per terms of reference.

4. Relief.

6. Subsequently, the following additional issues were also framed on 30.08.2007:­ 1A Whether the workman Santosh worked with management with effect from 01.07.1997 to 31.07.1997? If so, its effect.

1B Whether the workman Naresh Kumar worked with the management from 01.06.1997 to 31.07.1997? If so, its effect.

7. From the side of the workmen, only one witness namely WW1 Sh. Santosh Singh was examined in this case and he also filed his affidavit Ex. WW1/A on record in support of his contentions. Thereafter, evidence of workmen side was closed.

8. From the side of the management, MW1 Sh. Brij Lal was examined who also filed his affidavit Ex. MW1/A on record in support of the contentions of the management and then evidence of the management was also closed.

9. Oral final arguments were heard in this matter from both sides.

10. The main submissions on behalf of the only contesting workman namely Sh. Santosh Singh were to the effect that he was regularly employed with the management at the post of 'Tailor' prior to the date of his illegal termination on 30.06.1997; that he was drawing salary @ Rs. 1550/­ per month; that he had worked regularly with the management without any break; that he had worked honestly and sincerely and did not give any chance of any complaint to the management during the tenure of his service; that there was no complaint against him regarding his work, conduct and behaviour; that despite his regular hard work, his services were terminated illegally by the management w.e.f. 30.06.1997 without any justified reasons and without any notice to him in this regard; that his services had been terminated by the management in violation to the principles of natural justice; that he was not given any prior notice before termination of his service as per provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short I.D.Act); that he was ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new) Page 3 of 9 entitled for his reinstatement w.e.f. the date of his illegal termination along with entire back wages and other consequential benefits as per law. Lastly, a prayer was made for his reinstatement with full back wages and all other consequential benefits as per law.

11. On the other hand, the main submissions on behalf of the management during the course of oral final arguments were to the effect that workman Santosh Singh joined the management as a 'Tailor' on fixed term basis w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 31.07.1997 on monthly wages of Rs. 2208/­ as per the terms and conditions of his appointment letter dated 01.07.1997 Ex. WW1/M1 on record bearing his signatures at point 'A' and also bearing the signatures of the proprietor of the management at point 'B'; that his services came to an end automatically at the expiry of his fixed period of service; that his contract of service for a fixed period was never renewed nor extended by the management; that he has not produced any cogent evidence on record, either oral or documentary, to establish his relationship as a regular employee of the management for a period of two years before the alleged date of his termination, as so claimed by him in his statement of claim as well as in his affidavit Ex. WW1/A on record; that he did not complete 240 days of regular service with the management during the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of his termination; that whatever was due to him for the period he actually worked with the management, the same was paid to him as per rules; that nothing was due to him from the management. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss his statement of claim.

12. Written synopsis of final arguments were filed on behalf of the management only. I have carefully perused the same. In my considered opinion, the same were almost the repetitions of averments of pleadings of the management on record. Such written arguments were not filed on behalf of the workman despite opportunity given.

13. The management has also relied upon certain authorities in support of its contentions and photocopies of such authorities have also been filed ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new) Page 4 of 9 on record. These authorities relied upon by the management in support of its contentions are as under:­

1. Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Darbara Singh, 2006 LLR 68 (Supreme Court of India)

2. Bhogpur Co­operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Harmesh Kumar, 2007 LLR 183 (Supreme Court of India)

3. West Fort Hospital vs. State of Kerala, 2004 LLR 1025 (Kerala High Court)

4. Kishore Chandra Samal vs. Divisional Manager, Orissa State Cashew Development Corpt. Ltd., Dhenkanal, 2005 X AD (S.C.)

171.

5. Municipal Council, Samrala vs. Raj Kumar 2006­II LLJ 553 (Supreme Court)

6. Surendranagar District Panchayat & Anr. vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai, 2006 LLR 250 (Supreme Court)

7. Surendra Nagar Distt. Panchayat & another vs. Gangaben Laljibhai & Others, 2006 (110) FLR 548 (Supreme Court)

8. Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and another vs. Sham Lal, 2006 (110) FLR 552 (Supreme Court)

9. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas, V(2004) SLT 566 (Supreme Court)

14. I have carefully gone through all these authorities. The ratio of all these authorities would be considered herein at relevant stage.

15. It is also made clear at this stage that out of seven workmen on whose behalf a joint statement of claim was field in this matter, only one workman namely Sh. Santosh Singh has contested this case on merits. Others have neither contested this case nor deposed before this court in support of their contentions. Hence, the remaining workmen are not entitled to claim any relief against the management in this matter. Accordingly, this case to be decided on merits now qua the workman Sh. Santosh Singh and the management herein. Hence, this clarification at this stage to the above effect.

16. I perused the entire judicial file minutely and my issue­wise decision is as under:­ ISSUE NO. 3 and Additional Issue no. 1A:­

17. I have taken up both these issues first because to my considered opinion, the main controversy in this matter revolves around these two ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new) Page 5 of 9 issues. To my further considered view, both these issues are inter­ connected with each other and can be decided by the same reasoning.

18. To my further considered view, the primary burden of proof of both these issues was upon the workmen side. In coming to this conclusion, I also find support from an important judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in the case of UCO Bank vs. Presiding Officer & Another 1999 V AD (Delhi) 514. In para 13 of this judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held mainly to the effect that principles regarding burden of proof are stipulated in Chapter VII of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short Evidence Act) and that Sections 101 to 114 A of Evidence Act were relevant on this aspect and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court further held in this judgment that General Principal, which is laid down in these Sections, particularly under Sections 101 and 102 of Evidence Act was that he who asserts must prove i.e. burden of proof is the obligation to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or Court to establish the existence or non­existence of a fact contended to by a party. It was further held in his judgment that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, for a negative is usually incapable of proof.

19. On this point, I further find support from important judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court given in the case of Canara Bank Lucknow vs. Union of India & Ors. 1998 LAB.I.C. 2923 (Allahabad High Court). The Hon'ble High Court held in para 11 of this judgment mainly to the effect that section 101 of Evidence Act postulates that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. It was further held that when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Reference was also made by the Hon'ble High Court to the provisions of Sections 102, 103 and 106 respectively of the Evidence Act pertaining to burden of proof in such like cases.

20. Now turning to the evidence of contesting workman Sh. Santosh Singh on record pertaining to these issues, he himself admitted in his cross­examination conducted before this court on 19.02.2010 by Ld. AR for management to the effect that it was correct that he joined the management as a 'Tailor'; that it was correct that he signs in Hindi and English; that it was correct that appointment letter Ex. MW1/M1 bears his signatures at point A; that he had not filed any document to show that he was employed as a permanent employee of the management; that he had not filed any document on record to prove that he had any dispute with the management regarding his salary during his service tenure with the management; that it was correct that Ex. WW1/6, WW1/7, WW1/10 to WW1/15 respectively did not bear his name and signatures; that he had no dispute with the management regarding the overtime; that it was correct that Ex. WW1/26 does not bear the date, month and the year. I have carefully seen the documents admitted by this workman himself in his cross­examination and more particularly his appointment letter Ex. WW1/M1 on record. As per this letter Ext. WW1/M1, this workman was appointed with the management purely for a fixed period w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 31.07.1997 i.e. for one month period only at the post of 'Tailor' at the wages of Rs. 2208/­ per month. This workman has not rebutted the contents of this letter by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary. The workman has not put any cogent evidence on record, either oral or documentary, to the effect that he was not paid wages by the management for the period w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 31.07.1997 i.e. for the fixed tenure of his service.

21. On the basis of the above mentioned discussion coupled with entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the workman Sh. Santosh Singh was appointed for a fixed period w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 31.07.1997 for which he was paid by the management as per rules and as per the terms and conditions of his letter of appointment Ex. WW1/M1 on record. Once he was appointed for a fixed period and once he was ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new) Page 7 of 9 paid for that period, the question does not arise about termination of his services illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, as alleged. Accordingly, both these issues are decided against this workman and in favour of the management.

22. The primary burden of proof of this issue was upon the management. In my considered opinion, the management side has not produced any cogent evidence on record to satisfy this court that the correct name of the management was M/s. World Fashions. Even on the appointment letter of workman Santosh Singh, the name of the management is written as World Fashion. Hence, this issue is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.

23. As already mentioned, the only contesting workman in this matter at present is Sh. Santosh Singh and this case has to be discussed on merits between this workman and the management. The other workmen are not entitled to any relief in this matter against the management as already mentioned. As regards the present contesting workmen Sh. Santosh, it has already been discussed that he was appointed for a fixed period of service for one month for which he had been paid by the management as per rules. As revealed from judicial file his fixed period of employment was never extended nor renewed by the management. Hence, the question of absenting from his duties after the fixed period of service does not arise. Accordingly, this issue is decided to the above effect.

Additional ISSUE NO. 1B

24. This issue pertains to workman Sh. Naresh Kumar who has not deposed in this matter in support of his contentions. As already mentioned, the workman Naresh Kumar is not entitled to claim any relief against the management in this matter. Hence, this issue is decided to the above effect in favour of the management and against the workman ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new) Page 8 of 9 Sh. Naresh Kumar.

25. In my considered opinion, the ratio of above mentioned authorities relied upon by management side fully supports the contentions of the management in this matter.

RELIEF:­

26. In view of the findings of this court on issue no. 3 and on additional issue nos. 1A to the above effect, I am of the considered opinion that the workman herein Sh. Santosh Singh is not entitled to claim any relief in this matter against the management. The other workmen are also not entitled to claim any relief against the management.

27. An award is passed to the above effect and reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.

       Announced in the open court today                  (DR. SHAHABUDDIN)
       on 05.05.2010                                                           Presiding Officer
                                                                          Labour Court No. IX
                                                               Karkardooma Courts, Delhi




ID NO. 335/98 (old), 309/08(new)                                                 Page 9 of 9