Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar vs M/S Smart Solution Print N Pack on 13 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 2097/21
CNR No. DLCT13-004083-2021
Shri Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh
R/o GH-6, H. No. 120, Paschim Vihar,
Meera Bagh,
New Delhi-110087
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd.)
F-49, Karampura, New Delhi-110015 ............ Workman
VERSUS
M/s Smart Solution Print N Pack
Through its Prop. Sh. Sumit Kohli,
WZ-8/2, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 .......... Management
Date of receiving of Reference : 01.11.2021
Date of Decision : 13.02.2025
AWARD
1. Vide Reference No.F.3 (05)/21/Ref./wd/Lab./13
dated 12.01.2021, the following Reference was received for
adjudication, from Joint Labour Commissioner, under Section 10
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 1
(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-1/31/61/616/Estt./2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009
in respect of industrial dispute between the Workman and
Management:
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Raj
Kumar S/o late Sh. Bhoop Singh have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the management; 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 with
the management since January 2015 as a
Machine Operator and his last drawn salary
was Rs. 17,000/- per month. The management
did not give any appointment letter to
workman. He did not give any chance of
complaint to the management during his
service period. The management did not
provide legal facilities like Bonus,
Appointment Letter, Minimum Wages, HRA,
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 2
ESI etc to him. Whenever he demanded the
above-said facilities, the managed assured him
to provide the same very soon. The minimum
wages declared by the NCT Govt. of Delhi
was Rs. 17,991/- for this post but the
management used to give only Rs. 17,000/-
per month.
ii. That on 28.05.2020, he demanded his
wages for the month of April 2020 from the
management but instead of paying the same,
the management had terminated his services
on the same day without any rhyme or reason,
without conducting any domestic enquiry and
without paying the earned wages for the
month of April and 27 days of May 2020.
iii. That a demand notice through his union
had been sent by him to the management on
17.07.2020 but the management neither
replied nor reinstated him on duty. He also
filed Statement of Claim before the Asst.
Labour Commissioner, Karampura, New Delhi
but no compromise materialized there, hence
Conciliation Officer referred the present
matter to this Court for proper adjudication.
iv. That the workman had worked
continuously with the management since the
date of joining till the date of illegal
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 3
termination. He neither left/absented from his
services nor resigned nor taken any full and
final payment from the management.
v. That the workman is unemployed and he
searched the job but despite his best efforts, he
could not get the employment.
vi. That it has been prayed that he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with full back wages
and continuity of his service along with all
consequential benefits arising therefrom.
3. DEFENCES:
Notice of Statement of Claim was issued to Management
and Management filed its Written Statement in which allegations
leveled in 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 workman has not come with clean
hands and suppressed the material facts from
this Court.
ii. That the workman had joined the
management w.e.f. 02.03.2020 and his last
drawn salary was Rs. 14,842/- on the post of
Helper. It is also stated that the management
had never terminated the services of the
workman and in fact, the Govt. of India had
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 4
declared lockdown on 25th March 2020 on
account of Pandemic Corona and when the
lockdown was partially lifted on 18.05.2020,
the management was allowed to open with
restriction, the management asked the
workman telephonically to join his duty but
the workman did not join his duty.
iii. That the workman had not worked with the
management for 240 days in a calendar year,
hence, the provisions of ID Act 1947 is not
applicable in the present case. It is also stated
that the workman was given all statutory
facilities which were applicable as per law and
management has not violated any provision of
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
iv. The management is still ready to keep the
workman on duty but workman is gainfully
employed and he is earning handsome wages.
There is also prayer for the dismissal of the
statement of claim.
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:
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 5
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed:
1.Whether the workman had worked with the
management for 240 days in a calender year?
OPW\
2. Whether the claimant had himself refused
to rejoin the duty after the Covid Lockdown
was lifted? OPM
3. Whether the management had illegally
terminated the services of the workman?
OPW
4. Relief
6. WORKMAN EVIDENCE:
7. In order to prove his case, the workman stepped into
the witness-box as WW-1. He relied upon the following
documents:
Ex.WW1/1 Office copy of demand notice dated
17.07.2020
Ex.WW1/2 Postal receipt
Ex.WW1/3 Office copy of statement of Claim filed before
Conciliation Officer
8. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
It is relevant to pen down here that the management has not come forward to lead any evidence. Hence, in view of LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 6 statement of ld. AR of the management, ME was ordered to be closed vide order dated 15.01.2025.
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
10. The issue-wise findings are as under :
11. ISSUE No. 11. Whether the workman had worked with the management for 240 days in a calender year? OPW\ The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the workman.
In order to discharge his onus, the workman/WW1-Raj Kumar deposed that he had been working with the management since January 2015 as a Machine Operator and his last drawn salary was Rs. 17,000/- per month. The management did not give any appointment letter to him, He did not give any chance of complaint to the management during his service period. The management did not provide legal facilities like Bonus, Appointment Letter, Minimum Wages, HRA, ESI etc to him. Whenever he demanded the above-said facilities, the management assured him to provide the same very soon. On 28.05.2020, he demanded his wages for the month of April 2020 from the management but instead of paying the same, it had terminated his services on the same day without any rhyme or reason, without conducting any domestic enquiry and without paying the earned wages for the month of April and 27 days of LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 7 May 2020. He also deposed that a demand notice through his union had been sent by him to the management on 17.07.2020 but the management neither replied nor reinstated him on duty. He also filed Statement of Claim before the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Karampura, New Delhi but no compromise materialized there. He also deposed that he had worked continuously with the management since the date of joining till the date of illegal termination. He neither left/absented from his services nor resigned nor taken any full and final payment from the management.
It is relevant to pen down here that the management did not come forward to lead any evidence as stated before but filed Written Statement. As per the Written Statement, the workman had joined the management w.e.f. 02.03.2020 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 14,842/- on the post of Helper. It is also stated that the management had never terminated the services of the workman and in fact, the Govt. of India had declared lockdown on 25th March 2020 on account of Pandemic Corona and when the lockdown was partially lifted on 18.05.2020, the management was allowed to open with restriction, the management asked the workman telephonically to join his duty but the workman did not join his duty. It is also stated that the workman had not worked with the management for 240 days in a calendar year, hence, the provisions of ID Act 1947 is not applicable in the present case. It is also stated that the workman was given all statutory facilities which were applicable as per law.
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 8 In light of above, there is dispute regarding the date of joining of the workman in the management. As per the testimony of workman/claimant, he had joined the management w.e.f. January 2015 and continuously worked till 27.05.2020.
Per contra, as per the Written Statement, the workman had joined the management on 02.03.2020 and on 25th March 2020 on account of Pandemic Corona and when the lockdown was partially lifted on 18.05.2020, the management was allowed to open with restriction, the management asked the workman telephonically to join his duty but the workman did not join his duty. In other word, as per management, the workman worked with the management from 02.03.2020 to 24.03.2020.
It is settled law that the onus to prove lies upon the Workman that he had worked for 240 days continuously in the twelve calendar months preceding the date of illegal termination of his services. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in R.M. Yellati Vs. The Asstt. Executive Engineer, 2005(4) SCT 695 and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi, 2007(5) AD(Delhi) 138 that it is well settled law that the burden to prove 240 days of continuous service lies on the workman. The relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rameshwar Dayal's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
"15. However, what needs to be seen in the present case is that whether the petitioner workman had completed 240 days of LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 9 continuous service in the year preceding the date of his termination, so as to be entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act. It is no longer res integra that the burden to prove 240 days of continuous service lies on the workman. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Yellati Vs. The Asstt.
Executive Engineer, reported as 2005(4) SCT 695 : 2005 IX AD (SC) 257, wherein it was held that the burden of proof is on the Workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year."
It is relevant to pen down here that the workman, in order to prove that he had worked with the management w.e.f. January 2015 till 27.05.2020 continuously, has relied upon the Ex. WW1/1 i.e. Office Copy of demand notice dated 17.07.2020, Ex. WW1/2 i.e. Postal Receipt Ex. WW1/3 i.e. Office copy of the Statement of Claim filed before Conciliation Officer.
I have gone through the above-said documents relied upon by the workman.
Here, it is considered view of the Court is that Ex.
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 10 WW1/1 i.e. Office Copy of demand notice dated 17.07.2020, Ex. WW1/2 i.e. Postal Receipt Ex. WW1/3 i.e. Office copy of the Statement of Claim filed before Conciliation Officer are not the documents which can prove that the workman had worked with the management w.e.f. January 2015 till 27.05.2020 continuously.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that during the cross- examination, WW1/workman stated that he had not filed any document/record to show that he was working with the management since 2015. He also stated that he had not filed any document on record to show that he had worked with the management after lifting the partially lock-down w.e.f. 18.05.2020. He had not filed any document on record to show that he had worked with the management more than 240 days and voluntarily said that the management had not given any document in that regard.
Admittedly, the workman did not file any document/record to show that he had been working with the management w.e.f. January 2015.
Further, it is also admitted case of the workman that he did not file any document on record to show that he had worked with the management more than 240 days.
Keeping in view the above discussion, it is held that the workman did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that he had LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 11 completed 240 days of continuous service with the management during the preceding one year from the alleged date of termination of his services. Hence, he has failed to prove that he had worked for management for 240 days during the period of twelve calender months preceding the date of alleged termination of his services.
Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
12. ISSUE No. 2Whether the claimant had himself refused to rejoin the duty after the Covid Lockdown was lifted? OPM The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the management.
As per the Written Statement, the workman had joined the management on 02.03.2020. On 25th March 2020 on account of Pandemic Corona, the Govt. of India had declared lock-down but when the lockdown was partially lifted on 18.05.2020, the management was allowed to open with restriction, the management asked the workman telephonically to join his duty but the workman did not join his duty.
On the other hand, as per the testimony of WW1/workman, on 28.05.2020, he demanded his wages for the month of April 2020 from the management but instead of paying the same, it had terminated his services on the same day without LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 12 any rhyme or reason, without conducting any domestic enquiry against him.
It is very relevant to pen down here that the management did not lead any evidence to discharge the onus conferred upon it.
In light of above, here it is considered view of the Court that the management has failed to prove that the claimant had himself refused to rejoin the duty after the Covid Lockdown was lifted.
Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
13. ISSUE No. 3Whether the management had illegally terminated the services of the workman? OPW The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the workman.
At this juncture, the reference may be made to the definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 2 (oo) of Industrial Disputes Act which reads as follows:
(oo) " retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include--
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 13 (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-
health;]
14. Clearly, retrenchment means termination for any reason whatsoever. Further, Section 25F and Section 25G of ID Act read as follows:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 14 25G.Procedure for retrenchment.--Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman Since this Court has already given its opinion that the workman has failed to prove that he had worked for management for 240 days during the period of twelve calender months preceding the date of alleged termination of his services therefore, this court is of the opinion that the services of the workman has not been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably. Hence, the workman is not entitled for protection of Section 25 F and G of Industrial Dispute Act.
Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
15. RELIEF:
16. Since the claimant has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in the 12 months preceding the date of the alleged termination of his services and further that his services have been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the Management, therefore, it is held that he is not LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 15 entitled for the relief 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 Labour Commissioner for publication. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2025.02.13 15:36:05 +0530 Announced in the open Court (REKHA) th on 13 February, 2025 Presiding Officer Labour Court - 07 Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi LIR No. 2097/21 Raj Kumar Vs. Smart Solutions Print N Pack Page 16