Delhi District Court
Page Numbers vs Immediately on 7 February, 2008
Page numbers
3. services
9.
15.payment
Claimant
Following
ClaimantIN sufficient
during
on
him
claimant
inhas
lieu
has
claims
THE the
for
alleged
issues
ofcannottwelve
alleged
notice.
COURT evidence
240
towere
thatworkman.
have
invoke
that
he months
days
framed
worked
on
worked
OF the for
in
demand any
preceding
The
benefit
bywith
MS. the
with
my
REKHAof
the
of Court
preceding
workman
learned
the the
statutory
section or: Tribunal
management order
management
RANI year
predecessor
25F
benefitscan
of for
POLCthe -of
for
management
four
Act.
vide
fourlong
XIII his
:years
order
years
got
as
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA : DELHI
to
discharge
immediately
come tothe
termination." thebefore
same
conclusion
by the
leading
that
dateacogent
workman
of and his
Tailor.
annoyed
but
datedhe13.10.2004
has
Hewith
He
has
notsent
him
been
not
: aand
given
demand
ableterminated
to
anyplace
notice
dateon
his
to
month
record
the
services
management
or ayear
single
on 30.05.2003.
of document
joining
by registered
duty
The
showing
with
same
post the
his
on
is
ID NO. 90/2004had, reliable
termination. in fact, evidence The
worked Labour
inDatefor
respect
240
Court days
thereof
of Institutionandinthe :a19.02.2004
which
High
year.
19.employment
23.01.2004
management.
alleged
Management
to beclaiming
prior
violative
Management
examined
to 09.03.2003.
reinstatement
of provisions
hand
in
1. As per terms of Reference. its writing
written
with
of theexpert
continuity
statement
Act as
Sh. it S.P.
was
alleged
of service
Singh
without thatwho and
any
he stated
joined
full
noticeback
that
its
or
Award Reserved : 02.02.2008
No
could
Court proof becommitted
oral
of receipt
or documentary.
an
of salaryerror orinIn wagesplacing
the even for 240 the of
13. Onus is on the claimant to proveDate that he of rendered 240
Award : days of continuous
07.02.2008
wages. Management
employment
payment
appointment in lieu on 2.09.03.2003
letter Relief.
thereof. refused
ExWW1/M3 to
at receive
wages dated the
of Rs.3104/-
registered
09.03.2003 per
letter.and
month.
Termination
application
Managementof for
his
BETWEEN days
non-availability
burden or on order the or of
employer
the
record same, of
to he appointment
prove
can very that well theor
SH.service
MAJID, with S/O theSH. management
MOHD. FASALU as defined in section 25B read with Section 25F of
ANSARI
16.appointment
employment
placed
Howonthe engagement
cause
workman
record
of
isworker
the
arbitrary
same the
application had
candate
andsame
for
prove not this
ExWW1/M1tothe
unlawful
ofthatworked
he
period
assummoned
heclaimant
was
the
andforwas
same
the 240
ExWW1/M2
for produced
workman
was days
from
employment
withoutwith
were
of the
by theany
signed
ExWW1/M1
respondent
notice by theor C/O DELHI HOSIERY WORKERS UNION (REGD.)
4. the Act Claimant as held examined in the himselfjudgments following as WW1 : and thereafter closed his evidence. 1800/9, GOVINDPURI, the authorities employer." workman.KALKAJI, concerned On this or ground the management alone, the
10.claimant. payment dated management Claimant 09.03.2003 in Helieuproved was canofinvoke clarified andthe hisappointment same.
report Section by His as ourExMW2/1.
25Fjuniors own letter ofHon'ble the ExWW1/M-3 haveActbeen High only retained if Court he of completed the ininthesameservice.
case date.
240ofHedays M/s Theis NEW DELHI-110019. Management award itself and examined place Sh.
is liable Niranjan tothe besame before Lal aside." set Garg, its the industrial accountant, as MW1 and Sh. unemployed claimant of Automobile continuouswasAssociation since confronted service the date withof withof Upper thealleged his management application India termination vs. immediately P.O. for appointment of Labour his services.
preceding CourtExWW1/M1. IIHe&the has Anr.date prayed 2006 He of AND adjudicator."
13.
14.S. P.In Manager, InSingh, Ravi HandN. Tikku R.B.I. writing v.(Supra) expert, Deputy Hon'ble as MW2 Commissioner Apex andCourtthereafter (S.W.) held&closed asOrs.follows : LLR 496 its evidence.
2006SH. CHAND
20.LLR for his said alleged In as 851 view followsBHALLA reinstatement termination wherein of the: aforesaid ofitwith his wasservices continuity held it is that clear asof isworkman that service clearthe fromand claimant canthe fullprove following back has his wages.
failed employment judgments.
to prove that by M/s MAYUR OVERSEAS
12.recently In caseour"28. own of The initialNagar Hon'ble Surendra burden High Court of proof District was onthe discussed Panchayat theand workmen issue of onus Another to VsofJethabhai proof of F-90/2, OKHLA production he worked with of INDL.appointment the AREA, management PH-I, letter, "I have not given any application in writing seeking for written atleast 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the
15. In Range NEW DELHI-110020. Forest Officer v. S.T. show that they had completed 240 days of service."Hadimani (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 25
5. employment I have carefully Pitamberbhai and(2005) perused observed asthe material follows available : whether on the record andApexhave Court heard employment. I 8doSupreme not remember Court Cases 450, I filled theany Hon'ble form for
2. evidence date Management of
11.the Apex alleged which In Manager, termination cancontested be R.B.I., in the of his nature his claimemployment ofvide attendance its written to be register, able statement.
tosalary invoke Itregister, issection stated leave 25F that Court held : Bangalore vs. S. Mani and others 2005 LLR 737 ALSO ATemployment authorized observed asrepresentatives "It has follows :withbeen the management.
forrepeatedly both sides. held I have that notso beenfarissuedas anany A-114, the OKHLA record, of the claim Hon'ble Act.
deposition ApexisAsnotINDL.
such
Court AREA,
maintainable ofno PFunlawful held PH-II, contribution, as follows astermination the: employees claimant of hishadstate employment notinsurance completed iscontribution.
there.
240 days Issue of is It
14. In Dhyan ".........in appointmentSingh and Raman letterour by opinion the the management. Lalconcerned, 2001 (88) FLR Tribunal It is was correct 230 it was held not that NEW DELHI - 110020.
industrial claim is its procedure is :
"The burden of proof lies on the workman to continuous was accordingly alsoExWW1/M-1 heldservice decided that the "15.
right to in The against workman be bears able placing thetothe my provisions AWARD claimant can invokecall signatures onus contained upon and theatonprovisions in in the favour points the management Section 'A'of25F of management the and the ofmanagement. 'B'. Act.
toI produce the am It is further these "To guided provethat by the a contract general principles of employment, of the there has to be law of ISSUE NO. 1 sure show he had worked continuously fora not whether Actfailure are required ExWW1/M-2 to be complied bears my signatures at points Act, 1947
1. records A claim pleaded and that on without was he evidence filed was first under employed of that determining thesection management he on 10(2A) 09.03.2003 who ofwith to asserts on the produce if the thethewages at Industrial must workman basis such ofofRs.3104/-
Disputes record, prove. an adverse per direct evidence to show 240 days in the preceding one year prior to some nexus between the
6. This'A'issue andcogent concerned 'B'." wrongly was had framed evidence completed thatby my 240 the days learned of respondent service had predecessor in as a the case was (hereinafter month inference RELIEF and can Based claimant called worked be drawn the forand on a the Act) against very theby short therule respondent.
Majid of management.
duration ThisRoman (hereinafter of can two be Law of called months. anythe -Itkind'el Claimant) is against further alleged his alleged retrenchment and ittheis date for the period of 12 months worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding of not receivedsuch by way incumbitas of appointment reference probatio, letter,section under quimonthly 10(1)(C) dicit, payment amd 12(5) non slip, of the Act. It qui M/s In
16.that heMayur started view ofworkman Overseas remaining termination." the aforesaid to (hereinafter absent adduce from claimant called duty is evidence notthe w.e.f.
entitled apart Management) 27.05.2003 to any from on theAppropriate without relief. following intimation
8. Havingdeductionpreceding admittedofhis his termination. It was the case of PF, signatures payment ofofany thedues application which would for appointment was directly filed negat' examining by the - the burden claimant himself toofprove under proving section the afactum 10(2A) factof reststhe of his on So the issue Act.
facts:
17.or prior Claimant sanction governmentshow had the be ofnot leave claimant informed. filed fromany Filethat be the application management hein had for sorecord directing workedand failed the but this to management report for duty to that he wasconsigned theto employment, room. any ExWW1/M-1 being claimant party in cannot who employment deny its of substantially contents. Vide the employer... assertsapplication From the ExWW1/M-1 should have been claim as follows was denied by correspondence He worked with wherein the which thethe management appellant.
respondent has asand'Tailor' Itfor admitted was four years. hisHe
12.produce evenInafter any the Bhogpur management such affirmative the tenor documents Co-operative of advised of the Sugar the him issue judgment Mills to could and do Ltd.
of sosupport no the v.
upon hashis Harmesh Labour the thereby case Kumar party Court abandoned showing 2007 LLR for appointment dated 09.03.2003 prima facie the appointment starts from that that
1. then claimant "Whether for the wasclaimant the ofto in his employment. services theleadclaimantevidence were to In substance, show terminated the unlawfully worked employment. employment Announced honestly with It who and in Hon'ble the is and it denied open for denied the diligently four that High years.
it,his and forservices Court, a never negative gave were it :is apparent any terminated. does PRESIDING cause not of admit that OFFICER complaint the to the 183 SC the date unlesscourts proved Apex toinhad the Court contrary. held that Onus isinfor on the claimant to prove that he that arehe favour in factof as worked documentary 240 evidence days to in of the record court today. by the management alleged the LABOUR statement COURT claim NO. ?" XIII management. of Hisdirect judgments last drawn and have simpleproceeded wages proof. on It the was Rs.3104/-per is well premise settled month. as Management Date : 07.02.2008 a definite year "For finding proceeding applicability on such his of type termination. section of issue.
KARKARDOOMA 25 F They Filing of the areof the I.D.an COURTS worked with the management prior to 09.03.2003.
that
if the burden the onus of proof and lies burdenon theofemployer proofDELHI of
to
18.deprived best
him of piece
statutory of evidence benefits. forWhencoming he to a demanded conclusion the one same Having failed affidavit to Act, the workmanprove his is only hiscontinuousis bound employment own statement to prove that with the in his he management management for
7. Parties were aware establishing prove that of the thethe controversy employment employee and not had have led evidence is consequently worked with to that effect. way favouror other." and that cannot be of regarded asany notice gotleast at annoyed 240 days hadterminated and been immediately in continuous his services preceding service on the 30.05.2003 date ofalleged 240 withoutdays termination or of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
3. services
9.
15.payment Claimant Following Claimant sufficient during on him claimant inhas lieu has claimsthe for alleged issues ofcannottwelve alleged notice. evidence 240 towere thatworkman. have invoke that he months days framed worked on worked the for in demand any preceding The benefit bywith the with my of the of Court preceding workman learned the the statutory section or managementTribunal order management year predecessor 25F benefitscan of for the of for management four Act.
vide fourlong his years order years got as to discharge immediately come tothe termination." thebefore same conclusion by the leading that dateacogent workman of and his but Tailor.
annoyed datedhe13.10.2004 has Hewith He has notsent him been not : aand given demand ableterminated to anyplace notice dateon his to month record the services management or ayear single on 30.05.2003. of document joining by registered duty The showing with same post the his on is had, reliable termination.
in fact, evidence The worked Labour in for respect 240 Court days thereof andinthe awhich High year.
19.employment 23.01.2004 management. alleged Management to beclaiming prior violative Management examined to 09.03.2003.
reinstatement of provisions hand in its writing written with of
1. As per terms of Reference. the expert continuity statement Act as Sh.it S.P. was alleged of service Singh without thatwho and any he stated joined full noticeback that its or No could Courtproof becommitted oral of receipt or documentary.
an of salary error orinInwages placing the even for 240 the of
13. Onus is on the claimant to prove that he rendered 240 days of continuous wages. Management employment payment appointment in lieu on 2.09.03.2003 letterRelief. thereof.
refused ExWW1/M3 to at receive wages dated the of Rs.3104/-
registered 09.03.2003 per letter.
and month.
Termination application Management of for his days non-availability burden or onorderthe or of employer the recordsame, of to he appointment prove can very that well the or service with the management as defined in section 25B read with Section 25F of
16.appointment employment placed Howonthe engagement cause workman record of is worker the the arbitrary same had same application candate and for provenotthis tothe ExWW1/M1 unlawful of worked that he period assummoned for heclaimant was the and was240 same the produced ExWW1/M2 for days from workman was with employment the withoutby were of the any signed ExWW1/M1 respondent notice by the or
4. the Act Claimant as heldexamined in the himselfjudgments following as WW1 : and thereafter closed his evidence. the authorities employer." workman. concerned On this or ground the management alone, the
10.claimant. payment dated management Claimant 09.03.2003 in Helieu proved was canofinvoke clarified and the hisappointment same.
report Section by His as ourExMW2/1. 25F juniors own letter ofHon'ble the ExWW1/M-3 have Actbeen High only retained if Court he of completed the ininthe same service.
case date.
240ofHe days M/s The is Management awarditself and examined place Sh.
is liable the Niranjan to besame before Lal aside." set Garg, its the industrial accountant, as MW1 and Sh. unemployed claimant of Automobile continuous wasAssociation since confronted service the date withof with of Upper thealleged his management application India termination vs. immediately P.O. for appointment of Labour his services.
preceding CourtExWW1/M1.
IIHe &the has Anr.date prayed 2006 He of
13. adjudicator."
14.S. P.In Manager, InSingh, Ravi Hand R.B.I. writing N. Tikku v.(Supra) expert, Deputy Hon'ble as MW2 Apex CommissionerandCourt held&closed thereafter (S.W.) asOrs.
follows : LLR 496 its evidence.
200620.LLR for his said alleged In as 851 view reinstatement follows termination wherein of the : aforesaid ofitwith his wasservices continuity held it is that clear asof isworkman that service clearthe fromand claimant canthe full prove following back has his wages.
failed employment judgments. to prove that by
12.recently In caseour"28.
ofown The initialNagar Hon'ble Surendra burden High Court of proof District was onthe discussed Panchayat theandworkmen issue of onus Another to VsofJethabhai proof of production he worked with of appointment the management letter, for "I have not given any application in writing seeking written atleast 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the
15. In Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani show that they had completed 240 days of service." (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 25
5. employment I have carefully Pitamberbhai and perused observed (2005) asthe material follows available : whether on the record andApexhave Court heard employment. I 8doSupreme not remember Court Cases 450, I filledtheany Hon'ble form for
2. evidence date Management of
11.the Apex alleged which In Manager, termination cancontested be R.B.I., in the of hisnature his claim employment of vide attendance its written to be register, able statement.
tosalary invoke Itregister, issection statedleave 25F that Court held : Bangalore vs. S. Mani and others 2005 LLR 737 authorized observed employment asrepresentatives "It has follows :withbeen the management.
forrepeatedly both sides. held I have that notso beenfarissued as anany the record, of the claim Hon'ble Act.
deposition isAsnot Apex such Courtmaintainable ofno PFunlawful held contribution, as follows astermination the: employees claimant of hishad state employment notinsurance completed iscontribution.
there.
240 days Issue ofis It ".........in appointment
14. In Dhyan industrial letter Singh and Raman our by opinion the the management. Lalconcerned, 2001 (88) FLR Tribunal It is was correct 230 it was held not that claim is its procedure is :
"The burden of proof lies on the workman to continuous was accordingly alsoExWW1/M-1 heldservice decided that the "15.
right to Theinagainst workman be bears able placing thetothe my provisions claimant can invoke call signatures onus contained upon and theat on provisions in in the favour points the management 'A'of25F of management Section the and themanagement.
'B'.
of Act.
toI produce the am It is further these "To guided provethat by the a contract general principles of employment, of the there has to be law of ISSUE NO. show he had worked continuously fora not1 sure whether Actfailure are required ExWW1/M-2 to be complied bears my signatures at points pleaded and records that on without he was evidence first employed of determining the management that he on 09.03.2003 who towith asserts on at if producethe thethewages must workman basis such ofofRs.3104/-
record, prove. an adverseper direct evidence to show 240 days in the preceding one year prior to some nexus between the
6. This'A'issue andcogent concerned 'B'." wrongly was had framed evidence completedthat by my 240 the days learned of respondent service had predecessor in as a the case was month inference RELIEF and can Based claimant worked be drawnforand on a the against very the short therule respondent. of management.
duration Roman
This of can
two be Law
of
months. any -It 'el kind is further alleged his alleged retrenchment and ittheis date for the period of 12 months worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding of not receivedsuch by as of way incumbit appointment reference probatio, letter,section under quimonthly 10(1)(C) dicit, payment slip, of the Act. It amd 12(5) non qui
16.that In he view started workman remaining ofpreceding termination."
the aforesaid to absent adduce from duty claimant is evidence not w.e.f.
entitled apart
27.05.2003
to any from
withoutAppropriate relief. intimation
8. Havingdeduction admittedofhis his termination. It was the case of PF, signatures payment ofofany thedues application which would for appointment was directly filed negat' by the examining - the burden claimant himself toofprove under proving section the afactum 10(2A)factof rests the on So the issue Act.
of his
17.or prior Claimant sanction governmentshow be had the ofnot leave claimant informed. filed from any Filethatbe the application management hein had for sorecord directing and worked failed theto but this management report for duty to that he wasconsigned theto room.
employment, any ExWW1/M-1 being claimant party in cannot who employment deny its of substantiallycontents. Vide the employer... assertsapplication From the ExWW1/M-1 should have been claim as follows was denied by correspondence wherein thethe appellant.
respondent has It case wasabandoned admitted
12.produce evenInafter any the Bhogpur management such affirmative the tenor documents Co-operative of advised of the the which Sugar him issue judgment Millsto could and do Ltd.
of sosupport no the andHarmesh v.
upon hashis Labour the thereby Kumar party Court showing 2007 LLR his for appointment dated 09.03.2003 prima facie the appointment starts from that that
1. then for the claimant "Whether wasclaimant the ofto thelead in his employment. services claimant evidencewere to In substance, show the unlawfully terminated employment. employment Announced with It who andis in Hon'ble the it denied open for denied the four that High years.
it,hisforservices Court, a were negative it :is apparentterminated.
does PRESIDING not admit that OFFICER the 183 date SC the unless proved Apex to the Court contrary. held Onus that isinfor on the claimant to prove that he that courts by the he are inhadfavour management in factof as worked documentary alleged 240 evidence the days statement to in the record of claim ?" XIII court today. of direct and simple proof. LABOUR COURT NO.
judgments have proceeded on It the is wellpremise settled as Date : 07.02.2008 a definite year "For finding proceeding applicability on such his of type of termination. section issue.
KARKARDOOMA 25 F They Filing of theare of the I.D.an COURTS worked with the management prior to 09.03.2003.
that
if the burden the onus of proofand lies burden on theofemployer proof
DELHI of
to
18. Havingbest failed piece
to
affidavit
Act, the workman of prove evidence his is only his for continuous comingemployment own statement is bound to a conclusion to prove thatwith the in hisone management he for
7. Parties were aware establishing prove that of the thethe controversy employment employee and not had have led evidence is consequently worked with to that effect.
way or
favour other." and that cannot be of regarded as
at least 240 days hadimmediately been in continuous preceding service the date ofalleged 240 days termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
3. services
9.
15.Claimant has sufficient Following Claimant during on him claimant has claimsthe for alleged issues cannottwelve alleged evidence 240 towere thatworkman. have invoke that he months days framed worked on worked the for in demand any preceding The benefit bywith the with my of the of Court preceding workman learned the the statutory section or managementTribunal order management year predecessor 25F benefitscan of for the of for management four Act.
vide fourlong his years order years got as to discharge immediately come tothe termination." thebefore same conclusion by the leading that dateacogent workman of and his but Tailor.
annoyed datedhe13.10.2004 has Hewith has not him been not : and given ableterminated to anyplace dateon his month record services or ayear single on 30.05.2003. of document joining duty The showing with samethe his is had, reliable termination.
in fact, evidence The worked Labour in for respect 240 Court days thereof andinthe awhich High year.
19.employment management. alleged Management to beprior violative Management examined to 09.03.2003.
of provisions hand in its writing written of
1. As per terms of Reference. the expert statement Act as Sh.it S.P. was alleged Singh without thatwho any he stated joined noticethat its or No could Courtproof becommitted oral of receipt or documentary.
an of salary error orinInwages placing the even for 240 the of
13. Onus is on the claimant to prove that he rendered 240 days of continuous employment payment appointment in lieu on 2.09.03.2003 letterRelief. thereof.
ExWW1/M3 at wages dated of Rs.3104/-
09.03.2003 per and month.
application Management for days non-availability burden or onorder the or of employer the recordsame, of to he appointment prove can very that well the or service with the management as defined in section 25B read with Section 25F of
16.appointment placed Howonthe engagement cause workman record of worker the samethe had same for application candate provenotthis tothe ExWW1/M1 of worked that he period summoned for heclaimant was and was the240produced ExWW1/M2 for days fromwith workman employment the by were of the signed ExWW1/M1 respondent by the
4. the Act Claimant as heldexamined in the himselfjudgments following as WW1 : and thereafter closed his evidence. the authorities employer." workman. concerned On this or ground the management alone, the
10.claimant. dated management Claimant 09.03.2003 He proved was can invoke clarified andhisappointment report Section by as ourExMW2/1. 25F own letter ofHon'ble the ExWW1/M-3 Act High only if Court he of completed the in the samecase date.
240of days M/s The Management awarditself and examined place Sh. the Niranjan is liable to besame before Lal aside." set Garg, its the industrial accountant, as MW1 and Sh. claimant of Automobile continuous wasAssociation confronted service with of with Upper thehismanagement application India vs. immediately P.O. for appointment Labour preceding CourtExWW1/M1.
II &the Anr.
date 2006 He of
13. adjudicator."
14.S. P.In Manager, InSingh, Ravi Hand R.B.I.v.(Supra) writing N. Tikku expert, Deputy Hon'ble as MW2 Apex CommissionerandCourt held&closed thereafter (S.W.) asOrs.
follows : LLR 496 its evidence.
200620.LLR said In alleged as 851 view follows termination wherein of the : aforesaid ofit his wasservices held it is that clear as isworkman that clearthe fromclaimant cantheprove following has his failed employment judgments. to prove that by
12.recently our"28.
In case ofown The initialNagar Hon'ble Surendra burden High Court of proof District was onthe discussed Panchayat theand workmen issue of onus Another to VsofJethabhai proof of production he worked with of appointment the management letter,for "I have not given any application in writing seekingwritten atleast 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the
15. In Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani show that they had completed 240 days of service." (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 25
5. employment I have carefully Pitamberbhai and perused observed (2005) asthe material follows available : whether on the record andApex have Court heard employment. I 8doSupreme not rememberCourt Cases 450, I filled theany Hon'ble form for evidence date of
11.the Apex alleged which In Manager, termination can be R.B.I., in the of nature his employment of attendance to be register, able tosalary invoke register, sectionleave 25F Court held : Bangalore vs. S. Mani and others 2005 LLR 737 employment authorized observed asrepresentatives "It has follows :withbeen the management.
forrepeatedly both sides. held I have that notso beenfarissued as anany record, of the Act.
Hon'ble deposition ApexAs Court suchofno PFunlawful held contribution, as follows termination : employees of hisstate employment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue is It ".........in appointment
14. In Dhyan industrial letter Singh and Raman our by opinion the the management. Lalconcerned, 2001 (88) FLRTribunal It is was correct 230 it was held not that claim is its procedure is :
"The burden of proof lies on the workman to was alsoExWW1/M-1 accordinglyhelddecided that the "15.
right Theinagainst workman bears placing the the my provisions claimant can call signatures onus containedupon and at on in in the favour points the management Section 'A'of25Ftheof and management management.
'B'. toI produce the am these "To guided provethat by the a contract general principles of employment, of the there has to be law of ISSUE NO. show he had worked continuously fora not1 sure whether Actfailure are required ExWW1/M-2to bears be complied my signatures at points records and on without evidence first of determining the management that he who towith asserts on produce if the thesuch must workman basis of an adverse record, prove.
direct evidence to show 240 days in the preceding one year prior to some nexus between the
6. This'A'issue andcogent concerned 'B'." wrongly was had framed evidence completed that by my 240 the days learned of respondent service had predecessor in asa the case was inference RELIEF can Based claimant be drawn and on the againstthe rule respondent.
the of Roman
This
management. can be Law
of any - 'el
kind
his alleged retrenchment and it is date for the
period
worked offor 12 more months
than preceding 240 days the in the year of not receivedsuch by as of way incumbit appointment reference probatio, letter,section under monthly 10(1)(C) payment slip, of the Act. It amd 12(5) workman
16. In view ofpreceding termination."
the aforesaid to adduceis qui claimant evidence not dicit, entitled apart to non any qui from relief. Appropriate
8. Havingdeduction admittedofhis his termination. It was the caseforof appointment PF, signatures payment ofofany the dues application which would was directly filednegat' by the examining - the burden claimant himself toofprove under proving section the afactum 10(2A) factof rests the on So the issue Act.
of his
Claimantbe
17.government had
the not
claimant
informed. filed any
Filethatbe application hein had for sorecord directing worked the but this management to show that he wasconsigned theto employment, room. any ExWW1/M-1 being claimant party in cannot who employment deny its of contents.
substantially Vide the employer... asserts application From the ExWW1/M-1 should have been claim as follows was denied by correspondence wherein thethe appellant.
respondent has his It case was showing his admitted
12.produce any In Bhogpur such affirmative documents Co-operative of of the which Sugar issue could Mills Ltd. support v. Harmesh Kumar 2007 LLR for appointment the tenor09.03.2003 dated the primaand judgment of no facie thetheupon Labour the Court appointment party starts from that that
1. then for the claimant "Whether wasclaimant the oftothelead in his employment. services claimantevidence were to In substance, show the unlawfully terminated employment Announced with who and in Hon'ble the it open for denied the four High years.
it, for Court, a negative it :is apparent does PRESIDING not admit that OFFICER the 183 date SC the unless proved Apex to the Court held Onus contrary. that isinfor on the claimant to prove that he that courts by the he are inhad managementfavourin fact of as worked documentary alleged the 240 evidence days statement to in the record of claim ?" XIII court today. of direct and simple proof. LABOUR COURT NO.
judgments have proceeded on It the is well premise settled as Date : 07.02.2008a definite year "For finding proceeding applicability on such hisof type of termination. section issue.
KARKARDOOMA 25 F They Filing of theare of the I.D.an COURTS worked with the management prior to 09.03.2003.
that
if the burden the onus and lies
of proof burdenon theofemployer proof
DELHI of
to
18. Havingbest failed piece
to
affidavit
Act, the workman of prove evidence his for continuous is only his coming to employment own statement is bound a conclusion to prove that with the in hisone management he for
7. Parties were aware establishing prove that of thethethecontroversy employment employee and not had have led evidence is consequently worked with to that effect.
way or
favour other." and that cannot be of regarded as
at least 240 days hadimmediately been in continuous preceding service the date ofalleged 240 days termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
9. services
15.Claimant has sufficient Claimant during on him claimant has claimsthe for alleged totwelve cannot alleged evidence 240 thatworkman. have invoke that months days heworked on worked the forwith in demand any preceding benefitThe withthe oftheCourt ofthe preceding workman the statutory section or managementTribunal order management 25F year benefitscan of for the of for management four Act.
fourlong years years got as to discharge immediately come tothe termination." thebefore same conclusion by the leading that dateacogent workman of and his Tailor.
annoyed but he has Hewith has not him been not and given ableterminated to anyplace dateon his month record services or ayear single on 30.05.2003. of document joining duty The showing with samethe his is had, reliable termination.
in fact, evidence The workedLabour in for respect 240 Court days thereof andinthe awhich High year.
19.employment management. alleged Management to beprior violative Management examined to 09.03.2003.
of provisions hand in its writing written of theexpert statement Act asSh.it S.P. was alleged Singh without thatwho any he stated joined noticethat its or No could Courtproof becommitted oral of receipt or documentary.
an of salary error orinInwages placing the even for 240 the of
13. Onus is on the claimant to prove that he rendered 240 days of continuous employment payment appointment in lieu on letter thereof.
09.03.2003 ExWW1/M3 at wages dated of Rs.3104/-
09.03.2003 per and month.
application Management for days non-availability burden or on order the orof employer the recordsame, of to he appointment prove can verythat well the or service with the management as defined in section 25B read with Section 25F of
16.appointment placed Howonthe engagement cause workman record of worker the the same had same for application candate provenot this tothe worked ExWW1/M1 of that he period summoned for heclaimant was and was the240produced ExWW1/M2 for days fromwith workman employment the by were of the signed ExWW1/M1 respondent by the the Act as held in the the following authorities employer." workman. judgments concerned On this or: ground the management alone, the
10.claimant. dated management Claimant 09.03.2003 He proved was can invoke clarified andhisappointment report Section by as ourExMW2/1. 25F own letter ofHon'ble the ExWW1/M-3 Act High only if Court he of completed the in the samecase date.
240of days M/s The itself and award placeto is liable thebesame before the industrial set aside." claimant of Automobile continuous wasAssociation confronted service with of with Upper thehismanagement application India vs. immediately P.O. for appointment Labour preceding CourtExWW1/M1.
II &the Anr.
date 2006 He of
13. adjudicator."
14. In In Manager, R.B.I.v.(Supra) Ravi N. Tikku DeputyHon'ble Apex Court Commissioner held&asOrs.
(S.W.) follows 2006: LLR 496
20.LLR said In alleged as 851 view follows termination wherein of the : aforesaid ofit his wasservices held it is that clear as isworkman that clearthe from claimant can theprove following has his failed employment judgments. to prove that by
12.recently our"28.
In case own
of The initialNagar
Hon'ble
Surendra burden
High Court of proof District was onthe discussed Panchayat theand workmen issue of onus Another to VsofJethabhai proof of production he worked with of appointment the management letter,for written atleast "I have not given any application in writing seeking 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the
15. In Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani show that they had completed 240 days of service." (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 25 employment Pitamberbhai and employment. observed (2005) as follows I 8doSupreme not remember : whether Court Cases 450, I filled theany Hon'ble form for Apex Court evidence date of
11.the Apex alleged which In Manager, termination can be R.B.I., in the of nature Bangalorehis employment of attendance vs. S. to be Mani register, ableothers and tosalary invoke register, 2005 section LLRleave 25F 737 Court held :
observed employment "It has as follows :withbeen therepeatedly management.held I havethat notso beenfarissued as anany record, of the Act.
Hon'ble deposition ApexAs Court suchofno PFunlawful held contribution, as follows termination : employees of hisstateemployment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue isIt ".........in appointment
14. In Dhyan industrial letter Singh and Raman our by opinion the the management.
Lalconcerned, Tribunal 2001 (88) FLR It is was correct 230 it was held not that claim is its procedure is :
"The burden of proof lies on the workman to was alsoExWW1/M-1 accordinglyhelddecided that the "15.
right in The against workman bears placing the the my provisions claimant can call signatures onus contained upon and at onin in the favour points the management Section 'A'of25Ftheof and management management.
'B'. toI produce the am these "To guided provethat by the a contract general principles of employment, of the there has to be law of show he had worked continuously fora not sure whether Actfailure are required ExWW1/M-2to be compliedbears my signatures at points records and on without evidence first of determining the management that he who towith asserts on produce if the thesuch must workman basis of an adverse record, prove.
direct evidence to show 240 days in the preceding one year prior tosome nexus between the 'A' andcogent concerned 'B'." evidence had completed that 240 the days of service had respondent in a inference RELIEF can Based claimant be drawn and on the the against rule respondent.
the of Roman
This
management. can be Law
of any - 'el
kind
his alleged retrenchment and ittheis date for the
period of 12 months
worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding of
such as appointment
incumbit probatio, letter, monthly payment slip,
workman
16. In view ofpreceding termination."
the aforesaid to adduceis qui claimant evidence not dicit, entitled apart to non from any qui relief. Appropriate
8. Havingdeduction admittedofhis his termination. It was the caseforof appointment PF, signatures payment ofofany the dues application which would negat' examining - the burdentoofprove himself proving theafactum fact rests of his on Claimantbe
17.government had the not claimant informed. filed any Filethatbe application hein had for sorecord directing worked the but this management to show that he wasconsigned theto employment, room. any ExWW1/M-1 being claimant party in cannot who employment deny its of contents.
substantially Vide the employer...asserts application From the ExWW1/M-1 claim correspondence was denied wherein by thethe appellant.
respondent has his It case was showing his admitted
12.produce any In Bhogpur such affirmative documents Co-operative of of the which Sugar issue Millscould Ltd. support v. Harmesh Kumar 2007 LLR for appointment the tenor09.03.2003 dated the primaand judgment of no facie thetheupon Labour the Court appointment party starts from that thatthen for the claimant wasclaimant to lead evidence in his employment. In substance, to show the employment Announced with who and in Hon'ble the it for denied the open four High years.
it, for Court, a negative it :is apparentdoes PRESIDING not admit that OFFICER the 183 date SC the unless proved Apex to the Court held Onus contrary. that thatare courts he inhadfavourin fact workedisfor of documentary onevidence the days 240 claimant to in to prove that he the record court today. of direct and simple proof. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII judgments have proceeded on It the is well premise settled as a definite Date : 07.02.2008 year "For finding on his proceeding applicability suchtermination.
type ofKARKARDOOMA issue.
25 FFiling They are the ofI.D.anCOURTS worked with the management prior of section to 09.03.2003. of the that if the burdenthe onus and lies of proof burdenon theofemployer proof DELHI of to
18. Havingbest failed piece to affidavit of prove Act, the workman evidence his for continuous is only his coming to employment own statement is bound a conclusion to prove that with the in hisone management he for establishing prove that the the employment employee had not is consequently worked with way or other." favour and that cannot be regarded as at least 240 days hadimmediately been in continuous preceding the service date ofofalleged 240 days termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
9. services
15. Claimant sufficient during on him claimant has the claims for totwelve cannot alleged evidence 240 workman.
have invokemonths days thatworked onthe forwith inany demand preceding benefitThe the of Court the preceding workman the ofstatutory section or managementTribunal 25Forderyear benefitscan of for the of management four Act. long years got to discharge immediately come tothe termination." thebefore same conclusion by the leading that dateacogent workman of and his annoyed but he has with not him beenand ableterminated to place on his record services a single on 30.05.2003.
document The showing samehis is had, reliable termination.
in fact, evidence The worked Labour in for respect 240 Courtdays thereof andinthe awhich High year.
19.employment alleged Management to beprior violative examined to 09.03.2003.
of provisions hand writing of the expert Act as Sh.it S.P. was Singh without whoanystated noticethat or No could Courtproof becommitted oral of receipt or documentary.
an of salary error orinIn wages placing the even for 240 the of
13. Onus is on the claimant to prove that he rendered 240 days of continuous payment in lieuletter appointment thereof.
ExWW1/M3 dated 09.03.2003 and application for days non-availability burden or on order the or of employer the record same,of to he appointment prove can verythat well the or service with the management as defined in section 25B read with Section 25F of
16.appointment How theof engagement cause workman worker the the same had same candatefor provenot this toworked ExWW1/M1 that he period he summoned was for and was the240produced ExWW1/M2 days workmanfromwith the by were of the signed respondent by the the Act as held in the the following authorities employer." workman. judgments concerned On thisor: ground the management alone, the
10.claimant. management Claimant He proved was can invoke clarified his report Section by as ourExMW2/1. 25F ownofHon'ble the Act High only if Court he completed in the case 240 of days M/s itself and award placeto is liable thebesame before the industrial set aside." of continuousAssociation Automobile service with of Upper the management India vs. immediately P.O. Labour preceding Court II &theAnr.
date 2006 of
13. adjudicator."
14. In In Manager, R.B.I.v.(Supra) Ravi N. Tikku DeputyHon'ble Apex Court Commissioner held&asOrs.
(S.W.) follows 2006: LLR 496
20.LLR alleged In 851 view termination wherein of the aforesaid ofit his wasservices held it is that clear as isworkman that clearthe from claimant can theprove following has his failed employment judgments. to prove that by
12.recently our"28.
In case own
of The initialNagar
Hon'ble
Surendra burden
High Court of proof District was onthe discussed Panchayat theandworkmen issue of onus Another to VsofJethabhai proof of production he worked withof appointment the management letter,forwritten atleast 240agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the
15. In Range Forest show thatOfficer they hadv.completed S.T. Hadimani (2002) 240 days 3 Supreme Court Cases 25 of service." employment Pitamberbhaiand observed (2005) as follows 8 Supreme : Cases 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court Court evidence date of
11.the Apex alleged which In Manager, termination can be R.B.I., in theof nature his employment of attendance to be register, able tosalary invoke register, sectionleave 25F Court held : Bangalore vs. S. Mani and others 2005 LLR 737 "It has observed as follows : been repeatedly held that so far as an record, of the Act.
deposition As such Hon'ble Apex Court heldof noPFunlawful contribution, as follows termination : employees of hisstate employment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue is It ".........in
14. In Dhyan industrial Singh and Raman our opinion the Lalconcerned, Tribunal 2001 (88) FLR was 230 it was held not claim is its procedure is :
"The burden of proof lies on the workman to was also helddecided accordingly that the "15.
right against in The workman placing the the provisions claimant can call onus containedupon andon inthe in favour the management of25F theof management Section management.
to produce these the "Toguided provethat by the a contract general principles of employment, of the there has to belaw of show he had worked continuously fora records and on Actfailure are required without first of to be complied determining the management towith on if the produce thesuch workman basis of an adverse record, evidence direct evidence that to he show who some asserts nexus must between prove. the 240 days in the preceding one year prior to concernedevidence cogent had completed that 240 the days of service had respondent in a inference RELIEF can Based claimant be drawn and on the the against rule respondent.
the of Roman
This
management. can be Law
of any - 'el
kind
his alleged retrenchment and ittheis date for the
period of 12 months
worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding of
such as appointment
incumbit probatio, letter, monthly payment slip,
workman
16. In view ofpreceding termination."
the aforesaid to adduceis qui evidence dicit, non from apart qui his termination. It was the case of Appropriate claimant not entitled to any relief. deduction of PF, payment of any dues which would negat' examining - the burdentoofprove himself proving theafactum fact rests of his on Claimantbe
17.government had the not claimant informed. filed any Filethatbe application hein had for sorecord directing worked the but this management to show that he wasconsigned theto room.
employment, any party in who being employment substantially of the employer...asserts From the claim correspondence was denied wherein by the the could appellant.
respondent has his It was admitted
12.produce any In Bhogpur such affirmative the documents Co-operative tenor of of the the which Sugar issue judgmentMillsand Ltd.
of no support thev.
uponHarmesh Labour the Court case Kumarshowing party 2007 LLR his then that for the claimant wasclaimant to lead evidence in his employment. In substance, to show the employment Announced with who and in Hon'ble the it for denied the open four High years.
it, for Court, a negative does it :is apparent PRESIDING not admit that OFFICER the 183 SC the Apex Court held that thatare courts heinhad favourin fact worked forevidence of documentary 240 days to in the record court today. of direct and simple proof. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII judgments have proceeded on It the is well premise settled as a definite Date : 07.02.2008 year finding on his "For proceeding applicability such type ofKARKARDOOMA oftermination. section issue. They 25 FFilingof the are the ofI.D.anCOURTS that the onus if the burden and lies of proof burden on theofemployer proof DELHI of to
18. Havingbest failedpiece to affidavit of prove Act, the workman evidence his for continuous is only his coming to employment own statement is bound a conclusion with to prove that the in hisone management he for establishing prove that the the employment employee had not is consequently worked with way or other." favour and that cannot be regarded as hadimmediately at least 240 days been in continuous preceding the service date ofofalleged 240 days termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
15.services Claimant sufficient during on him claimant the claims for totwelve cannot evidence 240 workman.
have months invokedays worked forwith inany preceding the benefitThe the ofCourt the preceding workman the sectionor 25FTribunal managementorderyear can of for the of four Act. long years to discharge immediately come tothe termination." thebefore same conclusion by the leading that dateacogent workman of and his but he has not been able to place on record a single document showing his had, reliable termination.
in fact, evidence The worked Labour in for respect 240 Court days thereof andinthe awhich High year.
19.employment Management priorexamined to 09.03.2003.
hand writing expert Sh. S.P. Singh who stated that No could Court proof becommitted oral of receipt or documentary.
an of salary error orinIn wages placing the even for 240 the of
13. Onus is on the claimant to prove that he rendered 240 days of continuous appointment letter ExWW1/M3 dated 09.03.2003 and application for days non-availability burden or on order the or of employer the record same, of to he appointment prove can very that well the or service with the management as defined in section 25B read with Section 25F of
16.appointment How theof engagement cause workman worker the the same had same candatefor provenot this toworked ExWW1/M1 that he period he summoned wasfor and was the240produced days ExWW1/M2fromwith workman the by were of the signed respondent by the the Act as held in the the following authorities employer." workman. judgments concerned or: ground On this the management alone, the management claimant. He proved was clarified his report by as ourExMW2/1. own Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s itself and award placeto is liable thebesame before the industrial set aside." Automobile Association of Upper India vs. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. 2006
13. adjudicator."
14. InIn Manager, R.B.I.v.(Supra) Ravi N. Tikku DeputyHon'ble Apex Court Commissioner held&asOrs.
(S.W.) follows 2006: LLR 496
20.LLRIn 851 viewwherein of the aforesaid it was held it is that clearworkman that the claimant can provehas his failed employment to prove that by
12.recently our"28.
In case own
of The initialNagar
Hon'ble
Surendra burden
High Court of proof District was onthe discussed Panchayat theandworkmen issue of onus Another to VsofJethabhai proof of production he worked withof appointment the management letter,forwritten atleast 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the
15. In Range Forest show thatOfficer they hadv.completed S.T. Hadimani (2002) 240 days 3 Supreme Court Cases 25 of service." employment Pitamberbhaiand observed (2005) as follows 8 Supreme : Cases 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court Court evidence date of alleged which termination can be in theofnature his employment of attendance to be register, able tosalary invoke register, sectionleave 25F the Apex Court held :
"It has observed as follows : been repeatedly held that so far as an record, of the Act.
deposition As suchofnoPFunlawful contribution,termination employeesof hisstate employment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue is It ".........in
14. In Dhyan industrial Singh and Raman our opinion the Lalconcerned, Tribunal 2001 (88) FLR was not 230 it was held claim is its procedure is :
"The burden of proof lies on the workman to was also helddecided accordingly that the right against in workman placing the the claimant can call onus upon andoninthefavour the management of the management. management to produce these "Toguided provethat by the a contract general principles of employment, of the law there has to be of show he had worked continuously fora records and on without failure of first determiningto on the management the such produce basis of an adverse record, evidence direct evidence that to he show who someasserts nexus must between prove.the 240 days in the preceding one year prior to cogent evidence that the respondent had inference can RELIEF Based claimant be drawn andon thethe against rule respondent.
the ofThis management.Romancan beLaw of any- kind 'el his alleged retrenchment and it is for the worked for more than 240 days in the year such as appointment incumbit probatio, letter, monthly payment slip, workman
16. In view ofpreceding the aforesaid to adduceis qui evidence dicit, non from apart qui his termination. It was the case of Appropriate claimant not entitled to any relief. deduction of PF, payment of any dues which would negat' examining - the burdentoofprove himself provingtheafactumfact rests of hison Claimantbe
17.government had the not claimant informed. filed any Filethatbe application hein had for sorecord directing worked the but this management to show that he wasconsigned theto room.
employment, any party in who being employment substantially asserts From of the employer... the produce any claim correspondence was such documents denied wherein by which the the could appellant.
respondentsupport has his It was admitted case showing his affirmative the tenor of of the the issue and judgment of no theupon Labour the Court party then that for the claimant wasclaimant to lead evidence in his employment. In substance,to show the employment Announced in the with who and it for deniedfour years.
it, for a the High Court, it is apparent open negative does PRESIDING not admit that OFFICER the thatare courts heinhad favourin fact worked forevidence of documentary 240 days to in the record court today. of direct and simple proof. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII judgments have proceeded on It the is well premisesettled as a definite Date : 07.02.2008 finding on his year proceeding suchtermination.
type ofKARKARDOOMA issue. Filing They are of the anCOURTS that the onus if the burden and lies of proof burden on theofemployer proof DELHI of to
18. Havingbest failedpiece to of proveevidence his for continuous coming affidavit is only his own statement in his to employmenta conclusion with the one management for establishing prove that the the employment employee had not is consequently worked with way or other."
favour and that cannot be regarded as at least 240 days immediately preceding the date of alleged termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
15.services Claimant sufficient on him claimant the claims for cannot evidence 240 workman.
to have invokedays worked forwith inany the benefitThe the ofCourt the preceding workman sectionor 25FTribunal management year can of for the four Act. long years to discharge immediately come tothethebefore same conclusion by the leading that dateacogent workman of and his but he has not been able to place on record a single document showing his had, reliable termination.
in fact, evidence The worked Labour in for respect 240 Court days thereof andinthe awhich High year.
19.employment Management priorexamined to 09.03.2003.
hand writing expert Sh. S.P. Singh who stated that No could Court proof becommitted oral of receipt or documentary.
an of salary error orinIn wages placing the even for 240 the of appointment letter ExWW1/M3 dated 09.03.2003 and application for days non-availability burdenor on order the or of employer the record same, of to he appointment prove can very that well the or
16.appointment How theofengagement cause workman worker the the same had same for candate provenot this toworked ExWW1/M1 that he period he summoned wasfor andwas the240 produced days fromwith ExWW1/M2 workman the by were of the signed respondent by the the authorities employer." workman. concerned On this or ground the management alone, the management claimant. He proved was clarified his report by as ourExMW2/1. own Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s itself and award placeto is liable the besame before the industrial set aside." Automobile Association of Upper India vs. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. 2006 adjudicator."
13. In Manager, R.B.I. (Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
20.LLRIn 851 viewwherein of the aforesaid it was held it is that clearworkman that the claimant can prove has his failed employment to prove that by
12. In case"28. The initialNagar of Surendra burdenDistrict of proofPanchayat was on theand workmen Another to Vs Jethabhai production he worked withof appointment the management letter,forwritten atleast 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the
15. In Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002) show that they had completed 240 days of service." 3 Supreme Court Cases 25 Pitamberbhai (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court evidence date of alleged which termination can be in theofnaturehis employment of attendance to be register, able tosalary invoke register, sectionleave 25F the Apex Court held :
observed as follows : record, of the Act.
deposition As suchofnoPFunlawful contribution, termination employeesof hisstate employment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue is It ".........in our opinion the
14. In Dhyan Singh and Raman Lal 2001 (88) FLR 230 it was held :Tribunal was not "The burden of proof lies on the workman to was also helddecided accordingly that the right against in workman placingthe the claimant can callonusupon andoninthefavour the management of the management. management to produce these "Toshowprovethata contract he had of employment, there has to be worked continuously fora records and on without failure of first determiningto on the management the such produce basis of an adverse record, direct evidence to show some 240 days in the preceding one year prior to nexus between the cogent evidence that the respondent had inference can RELIEF claimant be drawn andagainst the respondent. This can be of any kind the management. his alleged retrenchment and it is for the worked for more than 240 days in the year such as appointment letter, monthly payment slip, workman
16. In view ofpreceding the aforesaid to adduceis evidence apart from Appropriate his claimant termination. not entitled It was to theanycase relief.of deduction of PF, payment of any dues which would examining himself to prove the factum of his Claimantbe
17.government had claimant the not filedFileany that application hein had sofor directing worked butthethis management to showinformed.
that he be
wasconsigned theto record room.
employment, any
being in employment of the employer... From produce any claim correspondencewas denied such documents wherein by whichthethe appellant.
respondent could has his support It case was showing his admitted the tenor of the judgment of the Labour Court then for the that claimant wasclaimant to lead evidence in his employment. to show In substance, the employment Announced in the with and it for four years.
the High Court, it is apparent open PRESIDING that OFFICER the thatare courts heinhad in fact favour worked forevidence of documentary 240 days to in the record court today. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII judgments have proceeded on the premise as a definite Date : 07.02.2008 finding on his year proceeding suchtermination.
type ofKARKARDOOMA issue. Filing They are of the anCOURTS if the burden of proof lies on the employer DELHI to
18. Havingbest failedpiece affidavit of is to prove evidence his only for hiscoming continuous own to a conclusion employment statement within theonemanagement for his prove that the employee had not worked with way or other." favour and that cannot be of regarded as at least 240 days immediately preceding the date alleged termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
15.services Claimant sufficient him claimant claims for cannot evidence 240 worked to have invokedays forwith inany the benefit the ofCourt the preceding sectionor 25FTribunal management year of for the four Act. long years to immediately come to thebefore conclusion the that datea workman of his but he has not been able to place on record a single document showing his had, termination.
in fact, The worked Labour for 240 Court days andinthe a High year.
19.employment Management priorexamined to 09.03.2003.
hand writing expert Sh. S.P. Singh who stated that No Court proofcommitted of receipt an of salary error orinwages placing for 240 the appointment letter ExWW1/M3 dated 09.03.2003 and application for days burdenor on order the or employer record of to appointment prove that the or
16.appointment How theofengagement workman worker the same hadfor candate provenot this worked ExWW1/M1 that period he wasfor andwas the240 produced days with ExWW1/M2 workman ofby were the signed respondent by the the employer."
workman. On this ground alone, the management claimant. He proved was clarified his report by as ourExMW2/1. own Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s award is liable to be set aside." Automobile Association of Upper India vs. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. 2006
13. In Manager, R.B.I. (Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
20.LLRIn 851 viewwherein of the aforesaid it was held it is that clearworkman that the claimant can prove has his failed employment to prove that by
12. In case"28. The initialNagar of Surendra burdenDistrict of proofPanchayat was on theand workmen Another to Vs Jethabhai production he worked with of appointment the managementletter,forwritten atleast 240 agreement days in ora year by circumstantial preceding the show that they had completed 240 days of service."
Pitamberbhai (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court evidence date of alleged which termination can be in theofnature his employment of attendance to be register, able tosalary invoke register, sectionleave 25F observed as follows :
record, of the Act.
deposition As suchofnoPFunlawful contribution, termination employees of hisstate employment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue is It
14. In Dhyan Singh and Raman Lal 2001 (88) FLR 230 it was held :
"The burden of proof lies on the workman to was also helddecided accordingly that theagainst workman the claimant can call upon and inthe favour management of the management.
to produce these "To provethat show a contract he had of employment, there has to be worked continuously fora records and on failure of the management to produce such record, an adverse direct 240 evidence days in totheshow some nexus preceding between one year prior the to claimant inference can RELIEF andagainst be drawn the respondent. This can be of any kind the management. his alleged retrenchment and it is for the such as appointment letter, monthly payment slip,
16. In view ofworkman the aforesaidto claimant adduceis evidence not entitled apart from Appropriate to any relief. deduction of PF, payment of any dues which would examining himself to prove the factum of his Claimantbehad
17.government not filed Fileany applicationto for directing room. theanymanagement to showinformed.
that he be wasconsigned in the recordemployment, being in employment of the employer... From produce any correspondence such documents wherein the could which respondent has his support admitted case showing his the tenor of the judgment of the Labour Court that claimant was in his employment. In substance, the employment Announced in the with and itthe openfor four Highyears.
Court, it is apparent PRESIDINGthat OFFICER the courts are in favour of documentary evidence to record court today. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII judgments have proceeded on the premise as a definite finding on such type ofKARKARDOOMA Date : 07.02.2008 issue. They are theCOURTS if the burden of proof lies on the employer DELHIto
18. Havingbest piece failed of evidence to prove for coming his continuous to a conclusion employment with theone management for prove that the employee had not worked with way or other."
at least 240 days immediately preceding the date of alleged termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
15.services Claimant him claimant claimsfor cannot 240 worked to have invokedays in the the benefit with the preceding of section management year 25F of for the four Act. long years immediately before the date of his but he has not been able to place on record a single document showing his termination. The Labour Court and the High
19.employment Management priorexamined to 09.03.2003.
hand writing expert Sh. S.P. Singh who stated that Court committed an error in placing the appointment letter ExWW1/M3 dated 09.03.2003 and application for burden on the employer to prove that the
16.appointment How theofworkman worker the same had candate provenotthat worked ExWW1/M1 he wasfor and the240 days with ExWW1/M2 workman were of the signed respondent by the the employer." management claimant. He proved was clarified his report by as ourExMW2/1. own Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Automobile Association of Upper India vs. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. 2006
13. In Manager, R.B.I. (Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
20.LLRIn 851 viewwherein of the aforesaid it was held it is that clearworkman that the claimant can prove has his failed employment to prove that by "28. The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to production he worked with of appointment the managementletter,forwritten atleast 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the show that they had completed 240 days of service."
evidence date of alleged which termination can be in theofnature his employment of attendance to be register, able tosalary invoke register, sectionleave 25F of the Act.
record, deposition As suchofnoPFunlawful contribution, termination employees of hisstate employment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue is It
14. In Dhyan Singh and Raman Lal 2001 (88) FLR 230 it was held :
accordingly was also helddecided that theagainst workman the claimant can call upon and inthe favour management of the management.
to produce these "To prove a contract of employment, there has to be a records and on failure of the management to produce such record, an adverse direct evidence to show some nexus between the claimant inference can RELIEF andagainst be drawn the respondent. This can be of any kind the management. such as appointment letter, monthly payment slip,
16. In view of the aforesaid claimant is not entitled to any relief. Appropriate deduction of PF, payment of any dues which would Claimantbehad
17.government not filed informed. Fileany applicationto for be consigned directing record room. the management to show that he was in the employment, any correspondence produce any wherein such documents the could which respondent has his support admitted case showing his that claimant was in his employment. In substance, the employment withopen Announced in the it for four years. PRESIDING OFFICER courts are in favour of documentary evidence to record court today. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII a definite finding on such type ofKARKARDOOMA Date : 07.02.2008 issue. They are theCOURTS DELHI
18. Havingbest piece failed of evidence to prove for coming his continuous to a conclusion employment with theone management for way or other."
at least 240 days immediately preceding the date of alleged termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers
15.services Claimant claimant claims cannot to have invoke worked the benefit with the of section management 25F of for the four Act. long years but he has not been able to place on record a single document showing his
19.employment Management priorexamined to 09.03.2003.
hand writing expert Sh. S.P. Singh who stated that appointment letter ExWW1/M3 dated 09.03.2003 and application for
16.appointment How theofworker the same candate prove ExWW1/M1 that he was andthe ExWW1/M2 workman were of the signed respondent by the management claimant. He proved was clarified his report by as ourExMW2/1. own Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Automobile Association of Upper India vs. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. 2006
20.LLRIn 851 viewwherein of the aforesaid it was held it is that clearworkman that the claimant can prove has his failed employment to prove that by production he worked with of appointment the management letter,forwritten atleast 240 agreement days in or a year by circumstantial preceding the evidence date of alleged which termination can be in theofnature his employment of attendance to be register, able tosalary invoke register, sectionleave 25F record, of the Act.
deposition As suchofnoPFunlawful contribution, termination employees of hisstate employment insurance iscontribution.
there. Issue is It was also helddecided accordingly that theagainst workman the claimant can call upon and inthe favour management of the management.
to produce these records and on failure of the management to produce such record, an adverse inference can be drawn against the management. RELIEF
16. In view of the aforesaid claimant is not entitled to any relief. Appropriate Claimantbehad
17.government not filed informed. Fileany applicationto for be consigned directing record room. the management to produce any such documents which could support his case showing his employment Announced withopen in the it for four years. PRESIDING OFFICER court today. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII Date : 07.02.2008 KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI
18. Having failed to prove his continuous employment with the management for at least 240 days immediately preceding the date of alleged termination of his DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004 Page numbers services claimant cannot invoke the benefit of section 25F of the Act.
19. Management examined hand writing expert Sh. S.P. Singh who stated that appointment letter ExWW1/M3 dated 09.03.2003 and application for appointment of the same date ExWW1/M1 and ExWW1/M2 were signed by the claimant. He proved his report as ExMW2/1.
20. In view of the aforesaid it is clear that the claimant has failed to prove that he worked with the management for atleast 240 days in a year preceding the date of alleged termination of his employment to be able to invoke section 25F of the Act. As such no unlawful termination of his employment is there. Issue is accordingly decided against the claimant and in favour of the management.
RELIEF
16. In view of the aforesaid claimant is not entitled to any relief. Appropriate government be informed. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open PRESIDING OFFICER court today. LABOUR COURT NO. XIII Date : 07.02.2008 KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI DocInformation:SubjectID NO.90/2004