Delhi District Court
Ms. Sunita vs M/S Vikas Polymers on 20 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
I.D. No. 6905/16
1.Ms. Sunita D/o Sh. Munna Lal and
2. Sh. Chandra Shekhar S/o Sh. Naval Kishore C/o Delhi Mazdoor Sangh, A217, Karampura, New Delhi15 .......... Workmen Versus M/s Vikas Polymers NW113, Vishnu Garden, Near Bus Body Builders New Delhi18.
..........Management Date of Institution of the case : 17032010 Date on which reserved for Award : 18052017 Date on which Award is passed : 20052017 AWARD The workmen have raised an industrial dispute against the management regarding their illegal termination by the management from the services before the Labour Department Competent Authority but the matter could not be settled before the Labour Department. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to the court by the Competent Authority vide No. F24(109)/09/WD/LAB./8578 I.D.No. 6905/16 Page 1 out of 6 Dated 05112009 with the following terms of reference: "Whether the services of Ms. Sunita D/o Sh. Munna Lal and Sh. Chandra Shekhar S/o Sh. Naval Kishore have been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the management; and if yes, to what relief are they entitled."?
Only one workman Ms. Sunita filed her statement of claim and workman Sh. Chandra Shekhar has not pursued the reference and has not filed statement of claim, as such, No Dispute/No Relief Award is passed so far against the workman Chandra Shekhar is concerned and the reference is answered accordingly so far workman Chandra Shekhar is concerned as statement of claim not signed by the workman Chandra Shekhar.
Workman Sunita filed her statement of claim stating therein that she has been working with the management for the last 2 years, prior to the date of termination i.e. 04082008 at the post of Helper and her last drawn salary was Rs. 1600/ per month. The workman was having flawless record of service but the management was not providing the statutory benefits, such as, appointment letter, paid leaves, yearly leaves, bonus, ESI, pay slip etc which the workman had been demanding from the management. Consequently, the management became annoyed against the workman and refused employment to the workman orally on 04082008 without payment I.D.No. 6905/16 Page 2 out of 6 of earned wages for the month of June & July, 2008. The Union of the workman sought the intervention of the Labour Inspector vide complaint for duty and earned wages, but in vain.
The workman served a demand notice dated 11082008 upon the management which was refused by the management. Workman has stated that her termination by the management is illegal and unjustified and capricious and is the height of malafide and unfair labour practices. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that she may be reinstated in service with full back wages alongwith consequential benefits.
Notice of the claim was issued to the management. Management appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the workman mainly on the ground that workman never worked with the management and has stated that the present claim has been filed to extort money from the management. The management has also denied the service of demand notice dated 11082008. The management has specifically denied that the workman had been in the employment of the management. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the claim of the workman may be rejected.
The workman filed rejoinder to the written statement controverting the averments made by the management and reiterating her stand.
From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 23082012 following issues were framed: I.D.No. 6905/16 Page 3 out of 6
1. Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties? OPW
2. As per terms of reference. OPW
3. Relief., and the matter was adjourned for workman evidence for 27112012. Ultimately, the workman Sunita examined herself as WW1 on 05112015. She tendered her affidavit Ex. WW1/A into evidence and relied upon the documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/3. She was crossexamined on 15072016 and discharged and the matter was adjourned for remaining evidence of the workman for 05092016. Ultimately, the workman evidence was closed vide order dated 13022017 in view of statement of AR of the workman and the matter was adjourned for management evidence for 11042017, but management failed to examine any witness in the present matter and ultimately the management evidence was closed vide detailed order dated 09052017, as none appeared on behalf of the management on 09052017.
Final arguments on behalf of the workman heard. File perused. Issuewise discussion is as under: ISSUE No. 1 In the present matter, the management has denied that the workman Sunita had been in the employment of the management and onus to prove the issue that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties, was on the workman, but the workman has failed to place on record even a single document to show that I.D.No. 6905/16 Page 4 out of 6 she had been in the employment of the management. She has placed on record the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3 i.e. demand notice, the postal receipt regarding sending of demand notice and AD card of the demand notice but during her crossexamination, she has specifically admitted that she has no appointment letter, she has no salary slip, since, the onus to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee was on the workman, it is for the workman to lead some cogent evidence to show that she had been in the employment of the management, merely saying that she had in the employment of the management, without documentary proof and without any examination of any coworker, cannot be said to be a sufficient proof to prove the employer and employee relationship.
Further, in the present matter, no application has been moved on behalf of the workman to direct the management to produce the documents. Even, if the workman was not having document regarding her employment with the management, she might have moved an application for direction to the management to produce the documents, but no such application has been moved on record by the workman. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that workman has miserably failed to prove that she has been in the employment of the management and as such, it is held that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided against the workman I.D.No. 6905/16 Page 5 out of 6 and in favour of the management.
ISSUE NO. 2Since the Issue no. 1 has already been decided against the workman that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management, there is no question of termination of services of the workman Sunita by the management, as such, there is nothing on record to suggest that the services of the workman Sunita have been terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably.
Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
RELIEF In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the workman Sunita is not entitled to any relief. The claim of the workman is rejected. Award is passed accordingly and the reference is answered accordingly. Requisite number of copies of the award be sent to the Competent Authority for publication. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 20052017 (SUDESH KUMARI)
Presiding Officer Labour CourtX
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D.No. 6905/16 Page 6 out of 6