Delhi District Court
Munna Sahani vs Chankay Enterprises on 16 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARCHANA BHALLA,
DISTRICT JUDGE/ POLC-V,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
LC No : 3498/16
CNR No. DLCT13-009643-2016
In the matter of :
Sh. Munna Sahani,
S/o Sh. Raj Mangal Sahani,
R/o D-2/401/1, Hari Nagar Extn.,
Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.
Through:
Universal Proutist Labour Federation,
In front of A-92, Okhla Indl. Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
......Workman/ Claimant.
Versus
1. M/s Chanakya Enterprises,
A287, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi - 110020.
2. M/s Chanakya Print and Packaging,
B-31, Sector-88, Noida (U.P.)-2101301.
(deleted from Array of Parties vide order dated
09.12.2024)
3. Vikram Arora,
Director of M/s Chanakya Enterprises and
M/s Chanakya Print and Packaging,
116-120, Nilgiri Apartment, Alknanda,
New Delhi.
(deleted from Array of Parties vide order dated
09.12.2024)
...Managements/ Respondents.
Date of Institution : 10.08.2016
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 16.01.2026
LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 1 of 21
Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises AWARD/ JUDGMENT This is a Direct Industrial Dispute filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 by the Claimant.
PART-A STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. It is claimed by workman in his statement of claim that he was working as a karigar with the management since 03.03.2010 and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs.8,000/-. The workman had orally demanded minimum wages, annual leaves, weekly offs, festival holidays etc. from the management. The management became annoyed with him. He was informed by the management he was to be transferred to Noida in view of the shifting of Chanakya Enterprises and he was required to submit his resignation and he would be provided with a new joining letter at the Noida address of the management. He declined to submit his resignation letter and demanded to be transferred / retained at the old job instead of fresh joining. Thereafter, the management, on 13.11.2015, terminated his services without paying him his earned wages, overtime etc.
2. It is further claimed that when the claimant sent a demand letter on 14.11.2015 through speed post regarding illegal termination of his services, the management did not reply to the demand letter of workman and thereafter, the claimant filed a complaint on 16.11.2015 before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi, but the management LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 2 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises did not reinstate him nor paid his dues.
3. On 03.04.2016, on the advice of labour inspector, he filed his demand letter before Assistant Labour Commissioner but management did not appear before the Labour Office. It is further claimed that he has been unemployed since the date of his termination and had failed to get a job despite efforts. It is further claimed that the management had obtained his signatures on blank papers and vouchers.
4. It is prayed by the claimant that his termination from work should be held as illegal and he should be reinstated with full back wages and other statutory benefits.
PART-B MANAGEMENT'S STAND/REPLY
5. In its written statement, it is submitted on behalf of management that the management M/s Chanakya Enterprises had become inoperational during the lifetime of late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora, its sole proprietor, sometime in the year 2015. Sh. Vikram Arora is only one of the legal heirs of late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora, who had passed away on 15.06.2019. The said proprietorship was established in the year 2000. The workman has never taken any step for bringing the legal representatives of late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora on record.
6. It is the case of Sh. Vikram Arora, that he never had any association with M/s Chanakya Enterprises or any role to play in its management. It is further submitted that the proprietorship LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 3 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises was constituted by the father of Sh. Vikram Arora i.e., late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora and the said proprietorship was owned, operated and management solely by him.
7. It is further submitted that the claimant, by way of his claim, had only made bald averments without any supporting documents to make out his prima facie case. It is further submitted that Sh. Vikram Arora had made efforts to trace out the old staff or accountant retained by his father prior to 2015, when the firm was closed. The management further denied the averments made by workman in his statement of claim and has prayed for dismissal of the present case.
PART-C REJOINDER
8. No rejoinder to the written statement of management is filed on behalf of workman.
PART-D ISSUES
9. From the pleading of the parties, the Court, vide its orders dated 04.09.2024 and 23.12.2024 had framed the following issues for trial, reading as under : -
1) Whether the workman was in continuous service for 240 days in the previous year before the termination of services? OPW
2) Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman?
OPW
3) Whether the services of the workman have been LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 4 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW
4) Relief.
PART-E CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE
10. The claimant examined himself as WW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A relying on the documents as follows:
a) Copy of demand notice dated 14.11.2015 vide Ex.WW1/1 (OSR).
b) Copy of complaint dated 16.11.2015 vide Ex.WW1/2 (OSR).
c) Copy of claim dated 03.04.2015 filed before the ALC vide Mark-A.
d) Copy of LCR report vide Mark-B.
e) Copy of order dated 14.06.2018 vide Ex.WW1/5 (OSR).
f) Copy of ESIC card vide Ex.WW1/6 (OSR).
g) Copy of postal receipt vide Ex.WW1/7 (OSR).
He was cross-examined at length by Ld. counsel/AR for the management.
11. Summoned witness Sh. Ajay Kumar, Inspecting officer from office of Dy. Labour Commissioner, South District was examined as WW-2. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the complete file including documents i.e., the complaint of the workman in this case given at the Labour Office and the consequent proceedings were not traceable with regard to which NCR was lodged at PS: Crime Branch, New Delhi on 08.08.2025 vide Ex.WW2/A.
12. Thereafter, workman's evidence was closed and matter LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 5 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises was fixed for management evidence.
PART-F MANAGEMENT EVIDENCE
13. The management examined Sh. Vikram Arora as MW-1 who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.MW1/A and also relied on the documents:
a) The copy of registration certificate of M/s Chanakya Enterprises issued by Delhi Sales Tax Rule-1975 vide Ex.MW1/1. (OSR)
b) Affidavit of documents/ records filed under Section 11 (3) of ID Act vide Ex.MW1/2.
c) Copy of cancellation of registration number/TIN number under DVAT/CST Act issued by Government of Delhi already exhibited as Ex.WW1/M1.
d) Copy of death certificate of Mr. Shyam Sunder Arora vide Ex.MW1/4.
14. On 17.09.2025, Sh. Rahul Mann, stenographer from Department of Trade & Taxes examined as MW-2, had brought the following documents:
a) Attested copy of Dealer Profile showing Sh. Shyam Sundar Arora as a Proprietor of Chankya Enterprises vide Ex.MW-2/1.
b) Application/ request from authorised signatory/ proprietor of Chankya Enterprises for Cancellation of Registration under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide Ex.MW-2/2 (colly 2 pages).
c) Cancellation Order dated 31.12.2015 issued by Department of Trade and Taxes vide Ex.MW-2/3.
d) Vat Returns for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.12.2015 LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 6 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises vide Ex.MW-2/4 (colly 14 pages).
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel/AR for the workman.
15. Thereafter, management's evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
PART-G FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
16. After considering the claim, reply, documents and the evidence led on record and also the submissions, made by the Ld. Counsel for the workman and Ld. AR for the management, the issues are decided as under:-
17. Issue No. 1 :- Whether the workman was in continuous service for 240 days in the previous year before the termination of services? OPW
18. Decision on Issue No. 1 :- This is an issue, to the effect, as to whether the workman has not completed 240 days of his service and burden to prove this issue was upon the workman. As per the stand taken by the workman, he had been employed by the management since the year 2010 and the management had terminated his services on 13.11.2015 without any reason. On the other hand, the management has countered the stand of the workman stating that the workman was never employed by the management.
19. In order to decide the issue raised, it is first necessary to consider the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions, namely LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 7 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises Section 2 (oo), Section 25B and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appropriate provisions are reproduced below:
Section 2 (oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as 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 bb) termination of the service of a 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;
Section 25B: Definition of Continuous Service:- For the purposes of this Chapter -
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or as strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 8 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer --
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than --
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine ; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer not less than --
(i) ninety five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty five days, in any other case. Explanation- For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall Include the days on which --
(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by Standing Orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;
(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years ;
(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ; and
(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
Section 25F - Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen:
LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 9 of 21Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises
- 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.
As per Section 25F, no workman who is in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer unless conditions laid therein are fulfilled. The retrenchment is defined in Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act).
20. Under the definition termination of the service of a workman by the employer by any reason whatsoever, otherwise than, as a punishment, by way of disciplinary action, would constitute retrenchment except in cases accepted in the Section itself, they are :- i) a voluntary retirement of a workman; ii) retirement of a workman on reaching the age of superannuation;
iii) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment; or (iv) termination of the service on the ground of continued ill- health of the workman.
LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 10 of 21Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises Unless these reasons are existed and proved, termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason, would constitute retrenchment.
21. Therefore, if the employer is to retrench the workmen employed in his industry who is in continuous service has to follow the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. To attract provisions of Section 25F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee;that he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by Section 25B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions are missing the provisions of Section 25F will not attract. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.
22. The Section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely :-
i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the prescribed manner.LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 11 of 21
Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises
23. To attract the provisions of Section 25F, one of the condition required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would not be not less than one year. Section 25B of the Act defines continuous service for the purposes of Chapter V-A "Lay-off and Retrenchment". The purport of this Section is that if a workman has put in an uninterrupted service of the establishment, including the service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, authorized leave, an accident, a strike which is not illegal, a lock-out or cessation of work, that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman, shall be said to be a continuous service, for that period. Thus the workmen shall be said to be in continuous service for one year i.e., 12 months irrespective of the number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service, permissible under Section 25B. However, the workmen must have been in service during the period, i.e., not only on the date when he actually worked but also on the days he could not work under the circumstances set out in Sub-Section (1). The workmen must be in the employment of the employer concerned on the days he has actually worked but also on the days on which he has not worked. The import of Sub Section(1) of Section 25B is that the workmen should be in the employment of the employer for the continuous, uninterrupted period for one year except the period the absence is permissible as mentioned herein above. Sub- section (2) of Section 25B introduces the fiction to the effect that even if the workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (i) of Section 25-B for the period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 12 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises days specified in clause (a) and (b) of Sub-s(2). By the legal fiction of Sub-s2(a) (i), the workmen shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year if he is employed underground in a mine for 190 days or 240 days in any other case. Provisions of the Section postulate that if the workmen has put in at least 240 days with his employer, immediately prior to the date of retrenchment, he shall be deemed to have served with the employer for a period of one year to get the benefit of Section 25F.
24. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.V Anil Mithra and Anr. v. Sree Sankracharya University of Sanskrit and Anr.1 that "The scheme of the Act 1947 contemplates that the workman employed even as a daily wager or in any capacity, if has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination and if the employer wants to terminate the services of such a workman, his services could be terminated after due compliance of the twin clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.
It further held that "The salient fact which has to be considered is whether the employee who has been retrenched is a workman under Section 2(s) and is employed in an industry defined under Section 2(j) and who has been in continuous service for more than one year can be retrenched provided the employer complies with the twin conditions provided under clauses(a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 before the retrenchment is given effect to. The nature of 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9067 OF 2014 DoD 27.10.2021 LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 13 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises employment and the manner in which the workman has been employed is not significant for consideration while invoking the mandatory compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947.
25. Coming to the question of burden of proof as to the completion of 240 days of continuous work, the law was laid down in Manager, Reserve Bank of India Vs. S. Mani (2005) 5 SCC 100, wherein it was held that the initial burden of establishment the factum of continuous work for 240 days in a year was on the workmen.
26. Thus, in the instant case, it was the workman who was required to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding year. It is the case of the workman that he had joined the management on 03.03.2010 and had worked with them till 13.11.2015, when his job was illegally terminated by the management. However, he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he had worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding year before his termination on 13.11.2015.
27. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not have any document to show that he had worked with the management for more than 240 days in any year. During the pendency of the trial, the workman took steps to move an application for summoning of his attendance records, payment register, bonus register, leave register and his application for appointment by the management for the period 2012 to 2015, but only in the year 2025, after 10 years of the closure of the management. In such case, the reply of Sh. Vikram Arora, LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 14 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises furnished vide Ex.MW1/2 stating his inability to furnish the summoned records on account of closure of the management, the demise of the sole proprietor of the management and the delay of almost 10 years in moving of the application by the workman for summoning of the said records as such a belated stage has to be considered and accepted at its face value, considering that no reason for the delay of almost 10 years in filing of the said application has been given by the workman. Thus, the delay in filing the said application appears to be deliberate and as an afterthought, only to fill in the gaps in the case of the workman.
28. The workman has also failed to summon any co-worker or bring on record the testimony of any co-worker as an independent witness. Since no steps have been taken by the workman to bring on record even the testimony of any independent witness in support of his case, thus, upon considering the entire record, no evidence has come on record to prove that the workman had actually worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.
29. In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195, it was noticed that neither the management nor the workman cared to produce the muster roll and that the employee did not even summon the muster roll, although the management had also failed to produce them. The court held that the employee had not produced any evidence before the court in support of his contention of having complied with the requirement of section 25-B ID Act, that apart from examining himself in support of his contention, the employee did not produce or call for any document from the office of the LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 15 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises management including the muster roll, and that apart from muster rolls, the employee did not produce the offer of employment or evidence concerning remuneration received by him for working during the aforementioned period.
30. In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25, the court held that it was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination, that filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his own favour, which cannot be recorded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that the workman had worked for 240 days in a year. The court found that there was no proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days, that the letter of appointment was not produced, that the letter of termination was not produced on record. The same was reiterated in the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2004) 8 SCC 161 and in the case of M.P Electricity Board Vs. Hariram (2004) 8 SCC 246.
31. In the instant case also, no proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record to prove that the workman had actually worked with the employer for not less than 240 days during the period of 12 calender months preceding the date of termination has been produced by the workman. He has not examined any co-worker. It is improbable that the workman who claims to have worked with the management for a period of more than 5 years would not possess any documentary evidence to prove the nature of his engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. Therefore, in opinion of this court, the LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 16 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises workman has failed to discharge his burden to prove that he was in the employment for 240 days during the preceding 12 month from the date of termination of his service.
32. Therefore, in view of the provisions of the ID Act discussed above and the settled law on the subject, to get any relief under the Act, prima facie, it must be shown by the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination. In the present case, the workman has not been able to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of his termination. In view of the above findings, issue no.1 is decided against the workman.
33. ISSUE NO. 2:- Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman? OPW
34. Decision on Issue No. 2 :- In the instant case, the workman had claimed that the management had informed him that they were moving him under the management of M/s Chanakya Enterprises in Noida (U.P.) and he was required to furnish his resignation letter and obtain a new joining letter from the Noida office of the management. When he refused to furnish his resignation letter, the management terminated his services on 13.11.2015.
35. On the other hand, Sh. Vikram Arora who appeared on behalf of the management as Legal Representative of late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora, the sole proprietor of M/s Chanakya LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 17 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises Enterprises, claiming that the said proprietorship was established by his father in the year 2000. It was owned, operated and managed by late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora during his life time and it was closed down in December, 2015 by the late proprietor of the management.
36. The copy of registration certificate of M/s Chanakya Enterprises issued under the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 vide Ex.MW1/1 (OSR), the attested copy of dealer profile showing Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora as a proprietor of the management vide Ex.MW2/1, the application/ request from the proprietor of M/s Chanakya Enterprises for cancellation of registration of management under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide Ex.MW2/2, the cancellation order dated 31.12.2015 issued by Department of Trade and Taxes vide Ex.MW2/3, VAT returns for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.12.2015 vide Ex.MW2/4, all relied upon by Sh. Vikram Arora in support of the case of the management, show that late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora was its sole proprietor. Sh. Vikram Arora is not mentioned in any of the said documents nor have any documents been brought on record by the workman in support of his contention that the management was also being run and managed by Sh. Vikram Arora alongwith his father at any point of time. Thus, it stands proved that late Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora was the sole proprietor of the management and the management had closed down on 31.12.2015.
37. The workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any document to show that he was an employee of the management. He has not even produced any bank LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 18 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises statement for the period he claims to be employed by the management, stating that his salary was paid in cash by the management. The ESIC card produced by him to show his employment by the management vide Ex.WW1/6 (OSR) does not bear the name of his employer. No other document has been produced by him to show that he was ever employed by the management. He has not disputed the death certificate of Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora vide Ex.MW1/4. He has not denied the cancellation order pertaining to management dated 31.12.2015 vide Ex.WW1/M1 stating he is not aware if the management was operational or not. He is unable to show if the management was operating at the Noida office. He has also admitted during his cross-examination that whenever any document was sent to the management, the same would return back with the report that the premises of the management was found closed.
38. The workman had moved an application under Section 11 (3) (B) of ID Act, 1947 on 13.04.2025 before the Court, calling for attendance register, payment register, bonus register, leave register and the application of the workman for appointment under the management. To the same, the management filed an affidavit vide Ex.MW1/2 stating that it had not been possible to trace out the said records despite efforts as these documents pertained to the year 2012 to 2015, whereas the management had already closed down in the year 2015. Furthermore, the sole proprietor of the management had passed away in the year 2019. It is to be noted that the present case was instituted by the workman in the year 2016 and the application to call the abovestated records pertaining to his employment was filed by the workman only in the year 2025, more than 05 years after the LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 19 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises sole proprietor of the management had already passed away and more than 10 years after the management had shut down. Sh. Vikram Arora, who had no concern with the operations of the management, cannot be expected, in such circumstances to produce the records as called for by the workman. Therefore, in light of these facts and circumstances, it is held that no evidence has been brought on record by the workman to prove his employment under the management and the factum of the employment of the workman under the management has remained unproved. Hence, Issue No. 2 is decided against the workman.
39. ISSUE NO. 3:- Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW
40. Decision on Issue No. 3 :- As decided in Issue No.1, the workman has failed to establish that he had worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the alleged date of termination of the services of the management and as per the decision of Issue No.2, the workman has even failed to prove and establish any employer-employee relationship between the management and him, as such, the workman has no claim under the Act. Furthermore, the postal receipt filed by the workman in support of service of demand notice dated 14.11.2015 vide Ex.WW1/7 bears the name of one Rajkumar as the sender. There is no postal receipt in his own name and in absence of any tracking report, the service of demand notice upon the management has also remained unproved. The workman also failed to bring on record his bank statement despite having a bank account in Union Bank of India, despite his cross-examination being deferred for LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 20 of 21 Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises production of the bank statement. Furthermore, the workman has claimed in his statement of claim that he was unemployed since the date of his termination, whereas in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was working on daily wages since the day of his alleged illegal termination by the management. In such circumstances, the testimony of the workman does not inspire the confidence of this Court. The Court is not required to go into the question of legality/illegality of the termination of his services, since the workman has himself failed to prove any employer- employee relationship with the managed and also has failed to fulfil the condition precedent to attract the provision of Section 25 (F) of ID Act. Hence, Issue No. 3 is also decided against the workman.
41. ISSUE NO. 4 : - Relief.
42. Decision on Issue No. 4 :- In view of the categorical findings, just returned, as above on the Issue No.1, 2 and 3, it is held that the workman is not entitled for any relief under the Act and his claim is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this Court dismisses the claim of the applicant/ workman.
43. Reference answered accordingly.
44. Let copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt for its publication as per rules.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed by ARCHANA ARCHANA BHALLA BHALLA Date: 2026.01.16 On 16.01.2026 14:19:26 +0530 (ARCHANA BHALLA) DISTRICT JUDGE/ POLC-V, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX NEW DELHI.
LC No. 3498/16 Page No. 21 of 21Munna Sahani Vs. M/s Chanakya Enterprises