Delhi District Court
Sh. Ajit Kumar vs M/S. New Delhi Municipal Committee on 11 December, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER
FAST TRACK COURT XXI, KARKARDOOMA, SHAHDARA,
DELHI
ID No.741/06/99
Sh. Ajit Kumar
C/o Municipal Employee's Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan,
G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,
Delhi54. .........Workman
Versus
M/s. New Delhi Municipal Committee,
Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi1 ......... Management
Date of Institution : 20.12.1999
Date of reserving for award : 29.11.2007
Date of award : 11.12.2007
Appearance: AR for workman Mohd. Farooq.
AR for management Mr. Vikas Nagpal.
Reference :
2
1.Surenderanagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh AIR 2006 SC110.
2. Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh AIR 2006 SC 56.
AWARD
1. Secretary (Labour) Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi vide No.F.24 (3440)/99Lab. has referred the case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the management M/s New Delhi Municipal Committee and its workman Sh. Ajit Kumar for adjudication to the Labour Court in the following terms of reference :
"Whether the services of Sh. Ajit Kumar 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. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that workman Ajit Kumar joined into the employment of New Delhi Municipal Committee w.e.f. 3 1.1.1988 as a Mali in the Horticulture department. He was being treated as a muster roll/monthly paid worker. Management without any reason or notice terminated him from service w.e.f. 20.12.1989. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred by Secretary (Labour). It was registered as I.D.No.449/93 and vide his order dt. 16.12.1998 the then Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Sh. Mahavir Singhal made a No Dispute Award, the said award was published and become operative w.e.f. 7.4.1999. The present reference has been made by the Secretary (Labour) in respect of the same dispute. Workman has claimed that he has been unemployed since his illegal termination i.e. from 20.12.1989. He has sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The stand of the management is that workman was appointed as a Beldar in Tilak Lane Services Centre on temporary muster roll as a daily wager. It has been specifically denied by the management that his services were terminated w.e.f. 20.12.1989. Management has claimed that services of the workman were discontinued after expiry of the sanctioned muster roll and he did not complete 240 days in any calender year prior to his disengagement. The 4 management has also took plea that once a No Dispute Award has been passed on 16.12.1998, the present claim on the same factual matrix is not maintainable.
3. To decide the present reference following issue needs to be settled.
1) As per terms of reference.
4. In support of their case both parties were called upon to lead their respective evidence. Workman has examined himself as WW1 and proved his affidavit as Ex. WW1/A and documents are Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/6. On behalf of management Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Deputy Director (Horticulture) has been examined who proved his affidavit as Ex. MW1/A and the documents proved on record are Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/10.
5. I have heard AR for workman Mohd. Farooq and AR for management Sh. Vikas Nagpal and gone through the entire record including sworn testimonies of the parties.
6. My findings on the issue are as hereunder :
Issue No.1 5 As per terms of reference.
The stand of the management is that claimant never worked for 240 days continuously in any year of his working with the management nor did he work continuously for 240 days immediately preceding his alleged date of termination. It is stated by management witness Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma that workman was engaged as a Beldar on TMR basis at Tilak Lane Service Centre on daily wages. He was never engaged as a Mali in Horticulture Department. His engagement was on TMR basis, used to end as and when the specific job was over for which he was engaged from time to time. Muster Roll for the relevant period has been proved as Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/10 showing the period of working of the claimant. In his cross examination WW1 Sh. Ajit Kumar has stated that he has no document or card to show that he was employed as a Mali. He admitted that he was engaged as a mazdoor on temporary muster roll w.e.f. 1.1.1988. He was issued muster roll card. He admitted that he was not getting regular allowances and benefits that the regular employees were getting. He also admitted that other mazdoors were also working in the NDMC on 6 temporary muster roll basis and they were also getting the same wages as he was getting. He also admitted that he used to be given breaks during his engagement as mazdoor on temporary muster roll basis. He further stated that he did not have any documentary evidence to the effect that he worked continuously for 240 days w.e.f. 1.1.1988 to 20.12.1989. Workman has filed on record muster roll card issued to him on 1.1.1988 as Ex.WW1/5 which is only a photocopy. He stated that original is not in his possession. Otherwise also it does not reflect that he remained continuously in the employment w.e.f. 1.1.1988 to 20.12.1989 or at least for continuous period of 240 days. He further stated that he does not know the contents of the his affidavit. He was unable to show whether he had served any demand notice on the management. Apart from the examining himself in support of his contention workman has not produced or called for any document from the office of the management to show that he worked continuously for 240 days. He has not examined any other witness in support of his case. It was necessary for the workman to produce relevant material to prove that he actually worked for 240 days. No proof of salary or wages or any record or 7 order in that regard was produced. No coworker was examined. Though management produced muster roll card but the workman could not show that he worked continuously for 240 days. I am supported in my opinion by Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh AIR 2006 SC 56 wherein it was observed that "it was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was so denied by the management. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court to come to the conclusion that workman had worked for 240 days in a year". Another relevant case law on the point is Surenderanagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh AIR 2006 SC110 wherein court held that "if the workman failed to discharge his burden that he was in employment for 240 days during preceding 12 months of the date of termination of his services. He was not entitled for protection of Section 25 F before his service was terminated". In view of the facts and 8 discussions I hold that workman has not been able to prove that he worked continuously 240 days with the management preceding his alleged date of termination and he has not been able to prove that his services were terminated illegally or unjustifiably. He is not entitled for any relief from the court. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
7. Reference is accordingly answered. Six copies of the award be sent to the Secretary (Labour). File be consigned to the record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON: 11.12.2007 (NISHA SAXENA) POLCFTCXXI KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI.