Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Gopal Yadav vs M/S Vimal Hosiery Industries on 29 April, 2010
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH: PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR
COURT NO. XVI: KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
ID NO. 47/08
Sh. Ram Gopal Yadav
S/o Sh. Ram Naresh
C/o Shramjivi Vikas Union (Regd.)
C-7, Khajan Basti, Nagal Raya
New Delhi-46. ...... Workman
VERSUS
M/s Vimal Hosiery Industries,
5406/3, Pratap Market,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6. ...... Management
Date of Institution : 23.02.08
Judgment reserved : 29.04.10
Date of decision : 29.04.10
NO DISPUTE AWARD
1.The National Capital Territory of Delhi, through its Secretary (Labour) vide reference no. F-24(1359)/2006/Lab./479-83 dated 23.01.08 referred the dispute for adjudication between the Management M/s Vimal Hosiery Industries and its workman Ram Gopal Yadav in the following terms of reference:
"Whether the services of Ram Gopal Yadav s/o Sh. Ram Naresh Yadav have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. As per statement of claim, the workman was employed with the management as Counter Salesman since 1977 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 3100/- per month. It is alleged that the management harassed the workman with ulterior motives and thereby terminated his services on 30.01.06. It is also alleged that management withheld the earned wages of the workman w.e.f. 01.12.05 to ID No. 47/08 1/2 -2- 30.01.06. It is further stated that in terminating the services of workman the management has not complied the provisions of section 25-F of ID Act.
2. WS filed. It is stated by management that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management. It is stated that claimant has never been appointed by the management to drive the car of the management. Remaining facts are hereby denied by the management.
3. Subsequently, Rejoinder to the W.S. of the management was filed wherein the workman has denied the allegations made in the WS and reiterated the averments contained in the claim.
4. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 21.08.09:
1. Whether there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management?
2. As per terms of reference.
5. After framing of issues, case was adjourned for WE. Perusal of file shows that workman was given as many as three opportunities to lead WE but neither workman led evidence nor appeared subsequently. AR for workman, however, appeared but he did not file any affidavit to lead evidence on behalf of workman.
6. Today also, neither workman nor AR for workman is available. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his dispute with the management. Therefore, No dispute award is passed.
7. Copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as per law. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance by Ahlmad.
Announced in the Open Court (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 29th April, 2010 Additional District & Session Judge
Presiding Officer labour Court XVI
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi.
ID No. 47/08 2/2
-3-
ID No. 47/08 3/2
-4-
ID No. 47/08 4/2