Delhi District Court
Sh. Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs ) M/S Orient Craft Ltd. And (2) M/S Rani ... on 26 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA: POLCV
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Old DID No.6/12
New DID No.1939/16
In the matter of :
Sh. Mahesh Kumar Yadav,
s/o Sh. Swami Nath Yadav
through Universal Proactive Labour Federation (regd.)
In front of A92, Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi
........Workman / Claimant
Versus
1) M/s Orient Craft Ltd. and (2) M/s Rani Enterprises
F23/3 Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi110020
.......Management
Date of Institution 21.09.2012
Date of arguments 23.09.2017
Date of Award 26.09.2017
A W A R D
1.The workman filed his statement of claim directly in the court with the following averments: WORKMAN's CLAIM
(a) that the claimant was working with the management M/s Orient Craft Limited (hereinafter to be referred as M1) w.e.f 11.11.2009 as a "Press Man" and his last drawn wages/salary was Rs.7356/ pm. During his service, he never gave any cause of complaint and he worked upto ID No. 1939/16 1 of 7 the satisfaction of the management.
(b) that the management M/s Rani Enterprises (hereinafter to be referred as M2) is the sister concern of M1. The M1 is running the M2 with a view to exploit the workmen and deprive them from legal benefits while the owner and management of both the managements are same. The management no.1 was paying the salary of the workmen who were working with the M2.
(c) that the M1 was not providing legal facilities to workmen and when the workmen demanded about the same, the management got annoyed and illegally terminated their services on 09.02.2012 without paying salary of January and February 2012.
(d) that thereafter the claimant, through his union, served the management with the demand notice dated 13.02.2012 but management did not respond. Thereafter, another demand notice dated 05.04.2012 was served upon the management whereupon the management agreed to join him back. Accordingly, on 12.04.2012 the workman went to the management at their office situated at B16 Okhla PhaseII and from there he was asked to go to another address of the management ie B14 and when he reached there, he was not taken on duty and asked to report at ID No. 1939/16 2 of 7 B16 and thereafter claimant again visited B16 where the management asked him to sign illegal documents and when claimant refused to sign the same he was moved out of the premises.
(e) That thereafter workman served another demand notice on 12.04.2012. Besides, on 18.04.2012 he also made a complaint to Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter he also filed his claim with the Conciliation Officer to which management did not respond. Thus, the workman prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of his service.
DEFENCE OF MANAGEMENT No.1
2. The management no.1 filed its WS and rebutted the workman's claim and stated that there is no relation of employer and employee between M1. The claimant was employed with the M2 who deployed the workman with it for a short duration and in this regard a contract was executed between M1 and M2 and the claimant is running absent from the service of M2 since 10.02.2012.
3. The M2 did not contest the present matter despite service, thus, it was proceeded ex parte on 30.05.2014.
4. The workman filed rejoinder and denied the contents of written ID No. 1939/16 3 of 7 statement of M1 and reaffirmed the averments made in his claim.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 14.09.2015:
1) Whether there exits any relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the management no.1? OPW
2) Whether the workman is employee of management no.2, which was the contractor of management no.1? OPM1
3) If issue no.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the workman, whether his services were illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management no.1? OPW
4) Relief.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for workman's evidence, however, despite opportunities, workman failed to lead any evidence and accordingly workman's evidence was closed on 21.03.2017. The M1 also opted not to lead its evidence, hence, evidence of M1 was also closed on the same day and matter was listed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments on behalf of M1 and gone through the record, however, none appeared on behalf of claimant to ID No. 1939/16 4 of 7 address arguments despite opportunities.
8. Issue wise finding of this court is as under : ISSUE No.1 Whether there exits any relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the management no.1? OPW
9. The onus to prove this issue No.1 was on the workman, however, despite opportunities, the workman did not lead any evidence. The workman was required to establish on record that the management no.1 and 2 are one and same and both establishments are not separate and individual establishments and they are distinct only on papers. The workman has not specifically mentioned in his claim as to under which establishment he was enrolled, however, it appears from the document (copy of Icard) filed by him along with his claim petition that he was working with the management no.2 M/s Rani Enterprises. Thus, in view of the settled law, he was required to establish on record that both the managements are separate and distinct only on papers and for all practical purposes they are one and same and M1 was paying salary to all the employees enrolled under M2 including the claimant. However, the claimant has neither established on record that the owner/manager of both the management is same nor that he was receiving wages from M1. Thus, it is held that the workman ID No. 1939/16 5 of 7 has failed to prove that he is the employee of management no.1. This issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE No.2 Whether the workman is employee of management no.2, which was the contractor of management no.1? OPM1
10. The onus to prove this issue was on M1 as the M1 claimed that the claimant was the employee of M2 who is the contractor of M1. The management no.1 has filed on record copy of an agreement dated 22.03.2011 executed between M1 and M2 for undertaking job of pressing of garments in the unit of M1 which includes providing of contract labour also, however, this document cannot be relied as the M1 has not led any evidence to bring this document on record by way of its evidence. Thus, it is held that the M1 has failed to prove that the workman was the employee of M2 (contractor). This issue is decided accordingly.
11. ISSUE No.3 If issue no.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the workman, whether his services were illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management no.1? OPW The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. Firstly, the workman was to establish on record that both the managements are both and same and M1 was his real employer. The workman did not lead any evidence to support his claim, thus, it is held ID No. 1939/16 6 of 7 that the workman has failed to establish on record that the M1 was his real employer as well as the fact that M1 terminated his services on 09.02.2012 as claimed by him in his claim petition. This issue is decided accordingly.
12. RELIEF In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that since the workman has failed to establish on record that the M1 was his real employer as well as the fact that M1 terminated his services as claimed by him in his claim petition, hence, he is not entitled any to relief. Accordingly, the claim petition of the workman is hereby dismissed.
13. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.
(AJAY GUPTA)
POLCV:KKD:DELHI
Announced in open
court on 26.09.2017
ID No. 1939/16 7 of 7