Delhi District Court
Hemant Kumar vs M/S Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd on 22 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN GOEL,
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - X
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1444/22
Hemant Kumar,
S/o Sh. Moolchand,
R/o H.No. D-198,
Swami Sharadhananad Park,
Bhalaswa Dairy,
Delhi - 110042
Through
Sh. Navjot Singh, Advocate,
Ch. D-2410/14, G-323,
Karkardooma Court,
Delhi - 110032
... Workman
Versus
(i) Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd.
At registered office:
Sharp House, Plot No. 9,
LSC, Gujrawala Town-1,
Delhi - 110033
Also at
SMA, C-15, Block-C,
Jahangir Puri Industrial Area,
Dehi-110033
... Management No.1
LIR No. 1444/22
Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 1/14
(ii) M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd.
Through
Sh.Sanjay Singhal (CEO & MD),
Sharp House, Plot No. 9,
LSC Gajrawala Town-1,
Delhi - 110009
... Management No.2
(iii) M/s.Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its (Director North),
Smt. Sunita Sharma, Sharp House,
Plot No. 9, LSC Gujrawala Town-1,
Delhi-110009
... Management No.3
(iv) M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its
General Manager Sh. Ramraj,
Sharp House, Pot No. 9,
LSC Gajrawala Town-1,
Delhi - 110009
... Management No.4
Date of institution of the case : 05.08.2022
Date of passing the Award : 22.02.2025
A W A R D:
1.A reference No F.24/60/R/22/398/CO-1/NWD/21/Lab/189-195 dated 29.06.2022 was received from Govt. for adjudication and LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 2/14 disposal of Industrial Dispute between the aforesaid workman and the management by formulating the following terms of reference :-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Hemant Kumar, S/o Sh. Mool Chand have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"
2. After the receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the workman for filing of statement of claim. The statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman on 06.10.2022. It is stated in the claim that he was working with the Management no. 1 since 11.02.2009 on the post of Assistant Operator. It is further submitted in his claim that the Management no. 1 was a private limited company registered at Sharp House, Plot No. 9, LSC, Gujrawala Town-1, Delhi - 110009 and doing business operations of mint- terpene chemistry and Agri products. The workman always worked sincerely, honestly and diligently and did not give any chance of complaint to the Management Department, hence, the service record of the workman was neat and clean.
3. It is further stated in his claim that the appointment letter dated 11.02.2009 was issued to the workman at the time of his joining and thereafter, Management no. 1 had issued a permanent job letter dated 12.08.2009. It is further stated in his claim that the workman had LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 3/14 account of Employees State Insurance Corporation and the ID card of the same has also been annexed along with his claim.
4. On 15.07.2021 the workman requested for leave for a month and gave a written application to authority and management duly approved the same. Thereafter, on 14.08.2021 the workman reached Management no.1, however, the General Manager Sh. Ram Raj of Management no. 4 informed the workman that his services have been terminated on which the workman was shocked and tried to contact higher authority, however, inspite of all efforts the workman could not contact them. It is further stated in his claim that the workman did all efforts to join office of Management no.1, however, he remained unsuccessful. After 16 days i.e., on 02.09.2021 Management no.1 with ulterior motive through the authorized person Mr. Ramraj i.e., Management no.4 contacted the workman and told that the Higher Authority wants him to join the company and he had to sign an apology letter for taking extra leave after the approved leave period time, which was a false letter, however, he signed the same as he was in need of a job but the Management no.1 neither responded nor called the workman to join his duties.
5. It is further submitted that through authorized person i.e., Management no.4, Management no. 1 pressurized the workman to LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 4/14 put his signatures on some more false letters. The workman also tried to approach Management no.2 and 3 so many times but remained unsuccessful and the Managements never cleared his account on one pretext or the other and that on directions of the Management no.1, workman had been giving his services at C-03, SMA Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, New Jahangir Puri, Delhi at the time of his illegal termination with utmost dedication.
6. It is further stated in the claim that the workman had been receiving the salary in his salary account opened at State Bank Personal Banking branch Sansad Marg, Delhi and the workman's name was duly registered in Employees State Insurance Corporation Limited with his family members. It is further stated that till date the workman had been approaching the authorized person of Management no.1 but no one was ready to hear his problem and that the workman approached Mr. Ramraj, Ms. Neha Aggarwal, Dr. Prateek, Sh. Sanjay Maintenance Supervisor, Sarwan Head of maintenance and others, however, no body resolved his matter. Thereafter, workman sent a legal notice dated 15.10.2021 to all the Managements, however, no one responded to his legal notice.
7. Being aggrieved, workman filed his claim before the Labour Commissioner, however, despite services no authorized LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 5/14 representative appeared before the Labour Commissioner and the office of Labour Commissioner referred the case to the court for adjudication. Hence, the present reference was made to the court. He prayed that the Management be directed to reinstate him to services with full back wages and consequential benefits.
8. A notice of the claim statement, filed on behalf of the workman, was issued to the management. On 16.12.2022 written statement has been filed on behalf of Management, wherein it is stated that the claimant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed and misrepresented the material facts in the present claim. It is further stated in the written statement that the claimant was never under the employment of the Management No.1 and there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the Management no.1 and the workman.
9. It is further stated in the written statement that the appointment letter filed by the workman shows that the workman was under the employment of M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. w.e.f. 12.02.2009 which reveals that the services of the claimant were regularized by the said M/s. Sharp Mentho India Ltd., as such, the statement of claim as filed by the workman against the Management no. 1 is wholly misconceived, misplaced, wrong and denied. It is further LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 6/14 stated that when the claimant was never under the employment of the Management no.1, all the averments made and allegations levelled by the workman against the Management no.1 are false, baseless, forged and fabricated and the claim was filed just to extort money from the Management no.1. It is further stated that the Management no.1 was never served with any notice/summon of the alleged claim filed by the workman and prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
10. Rejoinder has not been filed by the workman to the written statement of the management despite sufficient opportunities.
11. After completion of pleadings, following issues were settled vide order dated 16.12.2022 :-
(i) Whether the services of the workman have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated and if so, its effect?....OPW
(ii) Whether there is relationship of employee-
employer between workman and management? OPW
(iii) Relief
12. Thereafter, matter was listed for workman evidence. The workman examined himself as WW-1 and tendered his evidence by LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 7/14 way of affidavit Ex.WW1/1 on 12.01.2024. He has relied upon the following documents: (i) copy of Aadhar Card Ex.WW1/1, (ii) copy of appointment letter Mark 1 (iii) copy of permanent job letter Mark-2 (iv) copy of ESIC Card Ex.WW1/B, (v) Legal Notice dated 15.10.2021 Ex.WW1/C. He has been cross examined at length by Sh. Santosh Singh, AR for the Management. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the workman, workman evidence was closed on 12.01.2024. Management Evidence was also closed in view of the submission made by AR for the Management that he do not wish to lead any evidence on behalf of the Management. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for final arguments.
13. Final arguments were heard from both the parties. File perused.
14. Now, in the light of evidence available on record and submissions made by both the parties, my issue-wise findings are as under: -
ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2:
15. The Case of the workman is that the workman was working with the management as "Assistant Operator" from 11.02.2009. He was issued appointment letter at the time of joining and subsequently LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 8/14 his services were made permanent vide letter dated 12.08.2009. He was also issued ESI card by the management. The workman on 15.07.2021 requested the management for leave of one month and after availing the said leave when on 14.08.2021 he reached the management he was informed that his services have been terminated. It is stated on behalf the workman that his services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act.
16. The management has denied the existence of employer-employee relationship by stating that the workman was never employed with the management. As the management has denied the employer- employee relationship, the onus was upon the workman to prove that there exist employer-employee relationship between him and the management. The law in this regard is well settled vide several judgments passed by superior courts. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as titled 'Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu', (2004) 3 SCC 514, held that :
"47. It is a well settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him."
17. Law otherwise is well settled by the judgment in LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 9/14 UCO Bank Vs. Presiding Officer & Anr. 1999 V AD (Delhi) 514 (Delhi High Court), that a fact has to be proved by a person who asserts. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that :
"Principles regarding burden of proof are stipulated in Chapter VII of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 101 to 114 A). General principle which is laid down in these Sections, particularly under Sections 101 and 102 is that he who asserts must prove i.e. burden of proof is the obligation to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or Court in order to establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact contended to by a party. Burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, for a negative is usually incapable of proof."
18. Further in case of "Ravi N. Tikoo Vs. Deputy Commissioner (S.W.) & Ors.", 128 (2006) DLT 267, it has been held that :
"It has been repeatedly held that so far as an industrial claim is concerned, its procedure is guided by the general principles of the law of evidence that he who asserts must prove. Based on the rule of Roman Law - 'el incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat' - the burden of proving a fact rests on party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, for a negative does not admit of direct and simple proof. It is well settled that the onus and burden of proof of establishing the employment is consequently on the workman. The workman can discharge the same by leading cogent and reliable evidence in respect thereof which could be oral or documentary in the event of non availability of LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 10/14 the same, he can very well cause the same to be summoned from the authorities concerned or the management itself and place the same before the industrial adjudicator."
19. It was further held by Delhi High Court judgment of "Automobile Association of Upper India Vs. P.O Labour Court-II & Anr. 130 (2006), DLT 160, that :
"Engagement and appointment of the workman in service can be established either by direct evidence like existence and production of appointment letter or written agreement, or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records, in nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave record, deposit of PF contribution, ESI, etc. or even by examination of coworkers and this onus can be discharged by evidence of the coworker who may depose before the Court that the workman was working with the management."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Shamim Mirza, (2009) 1 SCC 20, held as under :
"20. It is trite that the burden to prove that a claimant was in the employment of a particular management, primarily lies on the person who claims to be so but the degree of proof, so required, varies from case to case. It is neither feasible nor advisable to lay down on abstract rule to determine the employer - employee relationship. It is essentially a question of fact to be determined by having regard to the cumulative effect of the entire material placed before the adjudicatory forum by the claimant and the LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 11/14 management."
21. The workman herein examined himself as WW1. He has filed on record two documents Mark-M1 and Mark-M2 to show that he was working with the management, however, he has not produced on record any original document to show his employment with the management. Perusal of the documents reveal that they are photocopies and do not bear the stamp of the management.
22. The workman has filed on record another document Ex.WW1/B which is ESI card issued to him by the management. Perusal of Ex.WW1/B reveals that it only mentions the employee name nowhere the name of the management or its stamp has been mentioned on it. Neither any document has been produced on record by the workman nor has summoned any document from the management to show that he was employed with the management.
23. The workman has alleged that he had issued demand notice dated 15.10.2021 to the management. The management on the other hand denied the receipt of the same. Perusal of the same reveals that the workman has only filed on record the legal notice Ex.WW1/C. No proof of delivery of Ex.WW1/C has been annexed with it. He has also not annexed any postal receipt to show that Ex.WW1/C was sent to the management. As the management had denied the receipt of the LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 12/14 legal notice, the onus was upon the workman to prove the service of the same upon the management but he has failed to do so. In judgement titled as Sindu Resettlement Corporation Limited vs. Industrial Tribunal of Gujrat and Ors, 1967 SCC Online SC 98 it has been held that for coming into existence of an industrial dispute the service of the demand notice upon the management is essential. Herein the workman has failed to show the service of the demand notice.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the workman has failed to establish employer-employee relationship between him and the management and also failed to prove that he had sent any demand notice to the management. Hence, both these issues are decided against the workman.
RELIEF:
25. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, the present claim filed on behalf of the workman is not maintainable and accordingly stands dismissed. The present reference stands answered accordingly.
26. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.
LIR No. 1444/22 Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 13/1427. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
ARUN ARUN GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.02.22
Announced in open court 14:26:18
+0530
on Dated: 22.02.2025 (Arun Goel)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court - X
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi: 22.02.2025
LIR No. 1444/22
Hemant Kumar vs. M/s. Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. Page 14/14