Delhi District Court
Through: Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikas vs M/S. Polter Engineering Company on 23 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT - XIX,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
LIR No. 9753/16
Sh. Ashok
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H. No. 236, Gali No. 18,
Hergopal Nagar, Najafgarh,
Delhi - 110 059.
Through: Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikas
Sangthan (Regd.)
CB6, Ring Road, Naraina,
New Delhi - 110 028. .....Workman
Vs
M/s. Polter Engineering Company
222/1, Nangli Sakrawati
Najafgarh Road,
New Delhi - 110 043.
Also at: 1629, Thana Road,
Najafgarh Road,
New Delhi - 110 043.
Date of Institution of the case : 18.09.2015
Date of decision of the case : 23.04.2019
LIR No. 9753/16 Page 5/5
AWARD
1.Vide its reference dated 03.08.2015, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has referred to this Court, for adjudication the following terms of reference: "Whether their existed an employeremployee relationship between the management and Sh. Satender Kumar S/o Sh. Har Prasad and Sh. Ashok S/o Sh. Om Prakash and if so whether services of Sh. Satender Kumar and Sh. Ashok have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so what directions are necessary and what are they relief entitled?"
2. Pursuant to service of notice of reference, the workman had appeared and filed his statement of claim, claiming therein that he was in the employment of the management as 'Skilled' for the last seven years with his last drawn salary was Rs.5,500/ per month. The workman was stated to be performing his duty with utmost satisfaction of the management and he had an unblemished and uninterrupted record of services to his credit. However, he was stated to have been deprived of statutory facilities such as: appointment letter, attendance register, double overtime, leave and leave encashment, bonus, pay slip, P.F. etc. When the aforesaid facilities were demanded by the workman, then, the management had got annoyed and had terminated LIR No. 9753/16 Page 5/5 his services abruptly on 15.11.2013 in an illegal and arbitrarily manner and while doing so, it had also withheld his earned wages for October and November, 2013 in utter violation of provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. It was stated further by the workman that he was not gainfully employed w.e.f. 15.11.2013 despite of his best efforts. The workman had also sent a legal demand notice dated 11.02.2014 to the management, however, despite its service, same was neither replied nor complied with by the management. Hence, the present reference was made. It was prayed in the statement of claim that the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of his service along with other consequential benefits.
4. Notice of this statement of claim was sent to the management which was also duly served upon the management who had also appeared to contest the claim of the workman on merits and had filed its written statement on record wherein the statement of claim filed by the workman was stated to be not maintaininable because there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and workman as the workman had never worked with the management. It was stated that the workman had not filed a single proof of his working with the management along with his statement of claim. It was stated further that the workman had filed the present LIR No. 9753/16 Page 5/5 claim only to harass and blackmail the management to extort money from it on the basis of false, fabricated and twisted story, hence, the claim of the workman was liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits, all other factual contents of the statement of claim which were neither specifically admitted to be correct nor essentially and purely constituted matter of record, were denied by the management as wrong and incorrect.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide his order dated 05.04.2017, was pleased to frame the following issues:
1. In terms of reference.
2. Relief.
7. Thereafter, matter was fixed for workman's evidence. The workman had filed his affidavit in evidence on 05.03.2018 but he had never tendered the same nor had appeared to face crossexamination by the management. Today, proxy AR for the workman had appeared and had submitted that the workman was not in contact with her / her senior for the last so many dates of hearing.LIR No. 9753/16 Page 5/5
8. Hence, it appears that the workman is not interested in prosecution of his case or has left with no evidence against the management to substantiate his allegations as contained in the statement of claim and hence, the workman had never appeared in this case except on the first date that was 04.10.2016. Therefore, the workman has miserably failed to prove and discharge the onus of all the issues which are accordingly decided against him and in favour of management.
Last Relief: In view of my aforesaid findings, the statement of claim is dismissed as having not proved for want of sufficient evidence and an award is accordingly passed while answering the reference.
Let copy of award be sent for publication and case file be consigned to record room.
LOKESH Digitally signed by
LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
KUMAR Date: 2019.04.24 17:00:01
Announced in Open Court SHARMA +0530
on 23rd day of April, 2019 (Lokesh Kumar Sharma)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge
Presiding Officer, Labour Court - XIX
Dwarka Courts, Delhi
LIR No. 9753/16 Page 5/5