Delhi District Court
Jai Chand vs M/S. Shakti Roadlines And R.P. ... on 13 May, 2025
IN THE Court OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR Court-III
ROUSE AVENUE Court COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-000011-2022
Ref. No. F.24(142)/Lab./SD/2021/11746 Dated 30.06.2021
LIR No. 24/2022
Sh. Jai Chand S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o House No. 85, Jafarabad Ganouli,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.
M. No. 9810732674, (UID No. 736015281926)
Through Sh. N.K. Mishra, Secretary,
Karamsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union (Regn.),
C-Block, 372, Part-3, Circular Road,
Near Ramnath Public School, 2nd Pushta,
Soniya Vihar, Delhi-110094.
M. No. 9873071635. .....Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport,
Sh. P.C. Heeranandani (Owner),
Head Office: R-40, South Extension,
Part-II, New Delhi. ...Management
Date of Institution of the case : 06.01.2022
Date on which Award is passed : 13.05.2025
AWARD
1.By this Award, I will dispose off the reference dated 30.06.2021 U/s 10(1)(C) & 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, received from the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, District South, Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide order Ref. No. F.24(142)/Lab./SD/2021/11746 dated 30.06.2021, whereby, the following issue has been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
LIR No. 24/2022Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 1 of 24 "Whether the services of Workman Sh. Jai Chand S/o Sh. Amar Singh, Aged-55 Years, Mobile No. 9810732674, (UID No. 736015281926) has left his services on his own if not, his services 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. The aforesaid reference was received by this Court on 06.01.2022, whereafter, the present statement of claim was filed by Workman on 30.05.2022. Brief case of Claimant, as per his statement of claim is that he had been working with Management as a Field Worker since March 1998 and his salary was initially fixed @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further his case that Management was running its business under various names such as M/s. Shakti Roadlines, M/s. Shreekrishna Roadlines, M/s. Jagdamba Roadlines, M/s. R.P. Transporters, M/s. Ambey Roadlines and M/s. LPG Carriers, however, has never provided the Claimant with any appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, over- time wages, bonus, minimum wages, ESI and PF facilities.
3. It is further alleged by him that he was initially posted by Management at B-C-7, Mangolpuri Industrial Area Phase-II, Delhi-110034, however, in the year 2002, he was verbally transferred to another site of Management at Village Shahbajpur, P.O. Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Since then, according to him, Claimant was working continuously at the aforesaid establishment of Management situated at Ghaziabad. In the month of October 2018, according to him, he suffered a severe heart attack and LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 2 of 24 pursuant thereto, on 19.10.2018, he was admitted in Narinder Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P from where he got his treatment as an OPD patient until 22.03.2019.
4. On 27.03.2019, according to him, he became seriously ill and was taken to Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, from where, he was referred to G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi for further treatment. It is further his case that on 28.03.2019, he was admitted in G.B. Pant Hospital, from where, he was discharged on 30.03.2019. After recovery from aforesaid illness, according to him, he went to Management and informed the Management about his illness and other sufferings including the fact that he had to incur a huge amount of more than Rs. 3,00,000/- due to non-providing of ESI facilities by Management. However, according to him, despite his demand for the aforesaid amount, which was incurred by him on his treatment, his salary and reinstatement, Management kept on avoiding the same on one pretext or the other and eventually, on 10.08.2019, flatly refused to pay his salary and to give him work while stating that w.e.f. 10.08.2019, Claimant should not be in service of Management.
5. Workman has thus prayed for his reinstatement into the services of Management with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits including his earned wages for the period 01.10.2018 to 10.08.2019.
6. Management appeared in response to notice of LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 3 of 24 statement of claim and filed its objections/written statement on 17.02.2023. In its written statement, Management has taken a plea to the effect that all the businesses, mentioned by Claimant in Para 3 of his statement of claim, have already become non-functional except M/s. R.P. Transporters. It has further been alleged by Management in its written statement that Claimant had never been in employment of Management. On the other hand, according to Management, it was availing the services of Claimant, on specific works/assignment basis, as a Freelancer.
7. It is further the case of Management that even as per his own admission in statement of claim, Claimant had been working with several other firms on freelance basis and hence, he does not fall within the definition of Workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. In the absence of his falling under the definition of Workman as per Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, according to Management, dispute, if any, between the parties does not fall within the definition of an 'industrial dispute' under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act.
8. Present claim, according to Management, has thus been filed by Claimant against Management merely to extort money from Management on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, more particularly, the identity card purportedly issued by the Management. Management has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim with cost.
9. A rejoinder to the aforesaid written statement was LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 4 of 24 thereafter filed by Claimant on 04.10.2023. In his rejoinder, he has once again reiterated the averments made by him in his statement of claim and has denied the contrary averments made by Management in its written statement.
10. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023:-
(i) Whether there exists relationship of employee and employer in between the parties to the present claim petition or the Claimant was not working as freelancer? (OPW)
(ii) Whether the services of the Workman have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the Management on 10.08.2019. If so, whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential reliefs as prayed for by the Workman in his claim petition? (OPW)
(iii)In terms of reference.
(iv) Relief, if any.
11. Claimant has thereafter examined three witnesses in support of his case including himself. He has examined himself as WW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex.WW1/1: Original receipt dated 16.10.2014 issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, North Circle, Faridabad in favour of R.P. Transporters.
(ii) Ex.WW1/2: Original receipt dated 27.12.2014 issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, North Circle, Faridabad in favour of R.P. Transporters.LIR No. 24/2022
Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 5 of 24
(iii) Ex.WW1/3: Duly attested Special Power of Attorney dated 27.07.2017 executed by Sh. P.C. Hira Nandani, proprietor of Management in favour of the Workman along with attested copies of Voter ID of Sh. Jai Chand and Sh. P.C. Hira Nandani.
(iv) Ex.WW1/4: Original letter dated 27.03.2019 purportedly issued by Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, Tahirpur, Delhi referring the Claimant to G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi for further treatment.
(v) Ex.WW1/6: Original discharge summary dated 22.04.2019 issued by the G.B. Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (GIPMER), New Delhi-110002 along with three medical documents.
(vi) Ex.WW1/7: 56 Original bills of Medical Expenses incurred by Claimant for his treatment at Narinder Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre, Ghaziabad, U.P. and Medical treatment/advice in 45 pages issued by Narinder Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre, Ghaziabad, U.P.
(vii)Ex.WW1/8: 08 original bills of Medical Expenses.
(viii) Ex.WW1/9: Copy of Demand Notice dated 24.07.2020.
(ix) Ex.WW1/10: Original Identity Card issued by M/s R.P. Transporters in the name of Claimant.
(x) Ex.WW1/11: Original Authorization letter dated 20.09.2000 on the letter head of M/s. Shakti Road Lines.
(xi) Ex.WW1/12: Original Authorization letter dated 20.09.2000 on the letter head of Sh. Krishna Road Lines.
(xii) Ex.WW1/13: Original Authorization letter dated 20.09.2000 on the letter head of M/s. Jagdamba Road Lines.
LIR No. 24/2022Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 6 of 24
(xiii) Ex.WW1/14: Original Authorization letter dated 23.02.2015 on the letter head of M/s. R.P. Transporter.
(xiv)Ex.WW1/15: Original Postal Receipt dated 19.08.2019 regarding dispatch of demand notice dated 17.08.2019.
12. Sh. Manohar Hiranandani, brother of Proprietor of Management, was examined by Claimant as WW-2 and he has identified the signatures of his brother on the document Ex.WW1/3.
13. Sh. Laddan, one of the alleged Co-Worker of Claimant, was examined by him as WW-3. WW-3 has produced a copy of his driving license Ex.WW3/A, alleging that the same was got prepared by Mr. Hiranandani, Proprietor of Management. He has also tendered few photographs Ex.WW3/B(colly), which, according to him, were clicked by the owner of Management on the occasion of Diwali in the year 2010 at the time of distribution of gifts to its employees.
14. WW-1 to WW-3 were duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Management. No other witness was examined on behalf of Workman despite opportunity and eventually, on a separate statement of Claimant, Claimant's evidence was closed vide order dated 01.05.2024.
15. Management has also examined three witnesses in support of its case, including its AR Sh. Pankaj Kumar Kamat. AR of Management has examined himself as MW-
1. Mohd. Taj S/o Ashidullah, has been examined by LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 7 of 24 Management as MW-2, whereas, Sh. Umesh Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, a businessman, running the business of transport under the name and style of M/s. Jai Durga Bulk Movers, has been examined as MW-3.
16. MW-1 and MW-3 were duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Claimant, whereas, MW-2 was not cross-examined by him despite opportunity. MW-1, during his cross- examination, proved his authority letter dated 10.02.2023 Ex.MW1/1.
17. No other witness was examined on behalf of Management despite opportunity and eventually, on a separate statement of Ld. AR of Management, Management's evidence was closed vide order dated 03.10.2024.
18. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of both the parties. Besides, written arguments were filed on behalf of Claimant on 01.03.2025 and on behalf of Management on 18.01.2025.
19. It is submitted by Ld. AR of Claimant that Claimant has been able to prove himself to be in employment of Management, since March 1998 until 10.08.2019, by way of his uncontroverted testimony in the form of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, which, is duly corroborated by the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/15. A special reliance has been made by him on the employee's identity card Ex.WW1/10 purportedly issued by Management in the name of Claimant, an SPA dated 27.07.2017 Ex.WW1/3 and the LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 8 of 24 authorization letter dated 20.09.2000 on the letter head of M/s. Shakti Roadlines.
20. He submits that Management has failed to disprove either of the aforesaid documents by leading any cogent evidence. He further submits that Claimant has also examined one of his Co-Workers viz. Sh. Laddan in his evidence as WW-3, who has categorically deposed that during 2008 to 2018, Claimant had been regularly working with Management. The aforesaid testimony of WW-3, according to him, has been duly corroborated by the testimony of Workman in the form of his affidavit Ex.WW1/A.
21. Even the testimonies of MW-2 and MW-3, according to him, supports the case of Claimant. He submits that once the Claimant has been able to prove the aforesaid documents, onus to prove the Claimant not to be an employee of Management stood shifted to Management, however, Management has failed to discharge the aforesaid onus. He further submits that Claimant, in his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, has categorically alleged illegal termination of his services by Management, without any notice, notice pay/service compensation in terms of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, w.e.f. 10.08.2019.
22. He submits that the aforesaid testimony of Workman, in the form of his affidavit Ex. WW-1/A has remained uncontroverted and hence, he is entitled to his reinstatement LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 9 of 24 with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR for Workman has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Automobile Association Upper India Vs. P.O. Labour Court 16 Anr. 130 (2006) DLT 160 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarabhai Harjibhai Rabari 2005 (10) SCC 792.
23. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. AR of Management that the onus to prove existence of employer- employee relationship, between the parties to present claim, was upon Claimant, however, Claimant has failed to discharge the aforesaid onus by leading any cogent evidence. He submits that despite categorical stand of Management that Claimant was providing his services to Management as a Freelancer and that Management used to assign work to him as per requirement against payment to be made as per specific jobs assigned to him, Claimant has failed to produce any document to prove his joining as an employee of Management.
24. It is further submitted by him that the documents Ex.WW1/11 to Ex.WW1/15 are not sufficient to prove that Claimant was ever in employment of Management. He submits that in the entire statement of Claimant as well as evidence by way of affidavit, Claimant has failed to disclose his last drawn monthly wages, nor, has he provided the details of payments, if any, received by him from Management towards his monthly wages and has vaguely LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 10 of 24 alleged in his evidence that initially his salary was Rs. 10,000/-.
25. He submits that Claimant was found taking contradictory stand regarding nature of his duties, in as much as, though, in Para 1 of his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, he has alleged himself to be a Field Worker, meaning thereby, he was working outside the office of Management in remote locations, however, in Para 4 of his statement of claim, he has alleged the place of his initial posting as B-C-7, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi-110034, while further alleging that the same was subsequently changed to Village Shahbajpur, P.O Loni, District Ghaziabad. He further submits that if the averment of Workman, in Para 4 of his statement of claim, regarding his working at two different sites at different points of time, is accepted to be correct, he cannot be said to be a Field Worker as stated in Para 1 of his statement of claim. In any case, according to him, both his aforesaid plea stood contradicted by the documents Ex.WW1/11 to Ex.WW1/14 and Ex.WW1/3 tendered by him in his evidence.
26. It is further submitted by him that Claimant has also failed to prove that he had completed 240 days of continuous service with Management, within the year immediately preceding the date of his alleged termination and hence, the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not attracted to the present case. He submits that during his cross-examination, Claimant has categorically admitted that he had no complaint or LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 11 of 24 grievance with Management for over a period of 20 years i.e. the entire period of his alleged employment with Management, despite his allegations in the statement of claim that he was not provided with any appointment letter or other statutory benefits.
27. Moreover, according to him, it is hard to believe that Claimant, if he was actually in employment of Management, would not have informed Management about the alleged heart attack or, for that matter, treatment undergone by him during a period of almost one year so that Management should have made alternative arrangements in his business. He submits that Claimant cannot be allowed to derive any benefit from the testimony of WW-3, to the effect that he was working with Management, in the absence of any clarification by him on the aspect whether he was working as a Freelancer or as a regular employee of Management. Moreover, according to him, WW-3 has also failed to describe the nature of work performed by him, whereas, MW-3, during his cross-examination, has admitted that Claimant used to supervise his vehicle repairing work meaning thereby that he had been working as a Freelancer for several establishments at the same point of time and hence, could not have been in employment of Management, as alleged by him in his statement of claim and evidence by way of affidavit.
28. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR of Management has relied upon following judgments:
LIR No. 24/2022Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 12 of 24
(i) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2004 SC.
(ii) Ircon International Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/DE/1958/2015.
(iii) Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsigh MANU/SC/1548/2005.
29. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record in the light of judgments relied upon by them. My issue-wise findings on the issues settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023, are as follows:-
Issue no. (i): Whether there exists relationship of employee and employer in between the parties to the present claim petition or the Claimant was not working as freelancer? OPW
30. As has already been observed hereinabove, Claimant, in his statement of claim, has alleged himself to be in employment of Management as a Field Worker since March 1998 until 10.08.2019, whereas, Management has denied the existence of any such relationship between parties and has alleged that Claimant was a Freelancer whose services were being availed by Management, as per requirement, against payment of his remuneration on assignment basis. In view of aforesaid rival pleadings of parties, considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. case (supra) as well as Ircon International Ltd. case (supra), onus to prove the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties was upon Claimant.
LIR No. 24/2022Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 13 of 24
31. In order to discharge the aforesaid onus, Claimant has not only examined himself as WW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, but, he has also examined one Sh. Sh. Laddan, his alleged co-worker, as WW-3. He has also examined Sh. Manohar Hiranandani, brother of the Proprietor of Management, as WW-2, so as to prove the SPA Ex.WW1/3, which was purportedly executed by Management in favour of Claimant.
32. In his evidence by way of affidavit, though, he has once again made a self-serving statement to the effect that he had been working with Management as a Field Worker since March 1998, however, he has failed to tender any document in his evidence to corroborate his aforesaid statement. Only documents, relied upon by him as a proof of his employment with Management, are (i) Ex.WW1/1 & Ex.WW1/2, which are the duly acknowledged copies of letters dated 16.10.2014 and 27.12.2014 respectively of the Management addressed to Joint Chief Controller of Explosives (North Circle), Faridabad, Haryana, (ii) an SPA dated 26.07.2019 Ex.WW1/3 (purportedly executed by Proprietor of Management in favour of Claimant), (iii) Ex.WW1/11 to Ex.WW1/13 i.e. three certificates dated 20.09.2000 on the letterheads of M/s. Shakti Roadlines, M/s. Shreekrishna Roadlines and M/s. Jagdamba Roadlines, authorizing him to do specified acts on behalf of aforesaid firms and (iv) Ex.WW1/14 i.e. an authority letter dated 23.02.2015 purportedly executed by Proprietor of Management M/s. R.P. Transporters in favour of Claimant.
LIR No. 24/2022Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 14 of 24
33. A bare perusal of documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 shows that in none of the aforesaid documents, there is any reference to Claimant, much less, any reference to him as an employee of Management. It is sought to be submitted by Ld. AR of Claimant that had there been no employer-employee relationship between the parties, there was no occasion for Claimant to be in possession of aforesaid documents. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of Claimant, in as much as, it is not even the case of Management that the Claimant was a complete stranger to Management. In fact, Management has admitted that it was availing his services as a freelancer for specific assignments. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, merely because Claimant is found in possession of aforesaid documents i.e. duly acknowledged copies of aforesaid letters, the aforesaid fact by itself is not sufficient to presume existence of any employer-employee relationship between the parties.
34. Now coming to the documents Ex.WW1/11 to Ex.WW1/14. No doubt, by virtue of the aforesaid letters, Claimant was apparently authorized to do specific acts on behalf of M/s. Shakti Roadlines, M/s. Shreekrishna Roadlines, M/s. Jagdamba Roadlines and M/s. R.P. Transporters, however, in none of the aforesaid documents, Claimant is stated to be an employee of Management. None of the aforesaid documents, in my considered opinion, can thus be taken to be an admission on the part of Management regarding existence of any employer-employee relationship LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 15 of 24 between the parties. Similar is the case with SPA Ex.WW1/3, admittedly executed by Sh. P.C. Hiranandani, Proprietor of M/s. LPG Carriers in favour of workman authorizing him to represent M/s. LPG Carriers before the police as well as the Court in relation to some vehicle. Even in the aforesaid document, Claimant has nowhere been admitted to be in employment of Management.
35. The next document relied upon by Claimant as a proof of his employment with Management is the identity card Ex.WW1/10, which, according to him, was issued by Management during his employment with Management. Management has however categorically denied having issued any such identity card in the name of Claimant. A bare perusal of aforesaid identity card shows that neither it bears the date of issuance thereof, nor, does it mention the period of its validity. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, in view of categorical denial by Management regarding issuance of any such document in the name of Claimant, the aforesaid identity card, by itself, is not sufficient to prove the existence of any employer- employee relationship between the parties, more-so, when Claimant has failed to produce any document to prove the receipt of any salary by him from Management at any point of time during his alleged employment with Management.
36. In fact, Claimant has even failed to disclose his last drawn salary with Management, in as much as, in Para 1 of his statement of claim and evidence by way of affidavit, he has mentioned his salary at the time of his alleged joining LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 16 of 24 the Management i.e. in the month of March 1998. It is further significant to note in this regard that in Para 3 of his statement of claim, Claimant has alleged that Management was running his business in various names i.e. M/s. Shakti Roadlines, M/s. Shreekrishna Roadlines, M/s. Jagdamba Roadlines, M/s. R.P. Transporters, M/s. Ambey Roadlines and M/s. LPG Carriers. A bare perusal of documents produced by him during his evidence shows that M/s. Shakti Roadlines, M/s. Shreekrishna Roadlines and M/s. Jagdamba Roadlines are purportedly the Partnership firms, in which Sh. P.C. Hiranandani was purportedly one of the Partners, whereas, M/s. R.P. Transporters and M/s. LPG Carriers are purportedly the proprietorship firms of Mr. P.C. Hiranandani. There is no document filed by the Claimant to suggest that M/s. Ambey Roadlines had any relationship either with the aforesaid firms or with Mr. P.C. Hiranadani.
37. Be that as it may be, in my considered opinion, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that Mr. P.C. Hiranandani, who was the Proprietor of M/s. R.P. Transporters and M/s. LPG Carriers, was also a Partner in M/s. Shakti Roadlines, M/s. Shreekrishna Roadlines and M/s. Jagdamba Roadlines, the aforesaid firms cannot be considered to be managed by the same Management, more so, when the Claimant himself has impleaded merely two of the aforesaid firms i.e. M/s. Shakti Roadlines and M/s. R.P. Transporters. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, the documents produced by the Claimant himself are suggestive of the fact that he was LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 17 of 24 never a regular employee of Management but was working as a Freelancer not only with Management, but also, with several other firms.
38. It is further significant to note in this regard that though, Claimant has alleged himself to be working with Management as a freelancer, however, in Para 4 of his statement of claim, he has alleged his initial place of posting to be B-C-7, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi- 110034, while further alleging that in the year 2002, he was verbally transferred to another site at Village Shahbazpur, P.O. Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P. If the aforesaid plea of Claimant is assumed to be correct, this Court, in my considered opinion, shall not even has the jurisdiction to deal with present claim, in as much as, even as per the averments made in the statement of claim, the situs of employment of Claimant, if at all, at the time of his alleged termination was Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P. and hence, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi had no jurisdiction to refer the present case to this Court.
39. It is also difficult for this Court to believe that the Claimant, who had been allegedly working with Management for over a period of 20 years, would not have complained about non-providing of statutory benefits such as, appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, over- time wages, compensatory leave, bonus, minimum wages, ESI and PF. In fact, during his cross-examination, Claimant himself admitted that there was no dispute between the parties until the year 2018 and the dispute arose between LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 18 of 24 them only when the Management refused to make the payment of expenses incurred by him on his treatment.
40. It is further submitted Ld. AR for Claimant that the inability of Claimant to produce any document, as a proof of his employment with Management, was on account of non-issuance of any such document by Management, however, in consonance with the requirement of the law in terms of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Automobile Association Upper India case (supra), Claimant has examined his Co-Worker as WW-3. WW-3, according to him, has categorically deposed that during his employment with Management i.e. during 2008 to 2018, Claimant had been regularly working with Management.
41. Though, there can be no dispute about the propositions of law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgment, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am unable to accept the submission of Ld. AR for Claimant that Claimant has been able to discharge his onus to prove employer employee relationship between the parties even as per the parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgment. It is significant to note in this regard that WW-3 has failed to produce any document to prove that he had ever been in employment of Management at any point of time despite categorical denial on the part of Management of existence of any employer- employee relationship between WW-3 on the one hand and Management on the other.
LIR No. 24/2022Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 19 of 24
42. Photographs Ex.WW3/B (colly), tendered by WW-3 in his evidence, in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted as a proof of existence of employer-employee relationship between WW-3 and Management. He has also failed to prove that the Driving License Ex.WW3/A, in his name, was got prepared by the owner of Management.
43. Thus, in the absence of proof of existence of any employer-employee relationship between Management and WW-3, WW-3 cannot be considered to be a Co-Worker of Management and hence, his testimony regarding existence of employer-employee relationship between the Management and Claimant cannot be accepted as a proof of the aforesaid fact.
44. Now coming to the testimony of WW-2. He has merely deposed having seen the Claimant working at the office of M/s. Shakti Roadlines on one or two occasions and has proved the execution of SPA Ex.WW1/3 by Sh. P.C. Hiranandani in favour of Claimant. The aforesaid testimony, in my considered opinion, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered to have the effect of proof of existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties to the present claim. Mores o, when during his cross-examination, he had categorically pleaded his ignorance about the fact whether the Claimant was an employee of M/s. Shakti Roadlines or Ms. R.P. Transporters.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Claimant has failed to prove existence of any LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 20 of 24 employer-employee relationship between the parties to present claim or that he was not working with Management as a Freelancer.
46. Issue no. (i) is thus decided against Claimant.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the services of the Workman have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the Management on 10.08.2019. If so, whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential reliefs as prayed for by the Workman in his claim petition? OPW
47. Claimant has alleged illegal and unjustifiable termination of his services by Management w.e.f. 10.08.2019, whereas, Management has denied even the existence of any employer-employee relationship between the parties. In view of aforesaid rival pleadings of parties, onus to prove illegal termination of his services by Management was upon Claimant. It has already been observed hereinabove that the Claimant has failed to prove existence of any employer-employee relationship between the parties to the present claim. In the absence of proof of existence of any such relationship between the parties, in my considered opinion, there was no occasion for Management to terminate his services on 10.08.2019, much less, illegally.
48. Even otherwise, Claimant has failed to prove that as on the date of his alleged termination i.e. as on 10.08.2019, he had been working with Management for a continuous period of one year. In fact, even from his statement of claim, it is LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 21 of 24 apparent that he had admittedly not been working with Management at least since October 2018 i.e. the date since when he had allegedly suffered heart attack. Though, in his demand notice dated 24.07.2020 (Ex.WW1/9), he has vaguely alleged that intimation regarding his treatment since 19.10.2018, at Narinder Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre, had simultaneously been given given by him to Management, however, his first demand notice Ex.WW1/15 is conspicuously silent about the aforesaid fact.
49. Moreover, his entire statement of claim is conspicuously silent about the fact that he had ever informed the Management about his inability to resume his duties due to alleged heart attack and subsequent treatment, much less, has he alleged that he was on medical leave during the aforesaid period. In fact, it is also not his case, either in his statement of claim or in his evidence by way of affidavit, that he was either advised any bed rest by the doctor during 19.10.2018 to 10.08.2019 or that he had applied for any medical leaves to the Management for the aforesaid period.
50. Thus, in view of aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein, Claimant has admittedly never worked with Management since October 2018, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 were not attracted to the present case, in as much as, he has admittedly not worked with Management, at least for a continuous period of 240 days within the year immediate preceding the date of his alleged termination i.e. LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 22 of 24 10.08.2019.
51. In view of aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Claimant has failed to prove that his services were terminated by the Management on 10.08.2019, much less, the same were terminated by Management illegally or unjustifiably, in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. In the absence of proof of illegal termination of his services by Management on 10.08.2019, he is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement with or without back wages.
52. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided against Claimant.
Issue no. (iii): In terms of reference i.e. Whether the services of Workman Sh. Jai Chand S/o Sh. Amar Singh, Aged - 55 Years, Mobile No. 9810732674, (UID No. 736015281926) has left his services on his own if not, his services 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?
53. In view of my findings on issues no. (i) and (ii) hereinabove, reference dated 30.06.2021 is hereby answered in negative in the following terms:
"The Claimant Sh. Jai Chand S/o Sh. Amar Singh has failed to prove that his services were terminated by Management either illegally or unjustifiably on 10.08.2019 and hence, he is not entitled to any relief."
Issue no. (iv): Relief, if any?
54. In view of my findings on issue no. (i), (ii) and (iii) LIR No. 24/2022 Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 23 of 24 hereinabove, Claimant is not entitled to any relief.
55. Present claim is thus dismissed and reference dated 30.06.2021 is answered in negative in the terms already stated in para 53 hereinabove.
56. Ordered accordingly.
57. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
Announced in the open Court on this 13th day of May, 2025.
This award consists of 24 number of signed pages. Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR ARUN KUMAR GARG
GARG Date: 2025.05.13
16:09:09 +05'30'
(ARUN KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-III
Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi
LIR No. 24/2022
Jai Chand Vs. Shakti Roadlines & R.P. Transport Award dated 13.05.2025 Page 24 of 24