Delhi District Court
The Case Of The Workman vs Poit (1) on 26 May, 2007
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPA SHARMA: PRESIDING
OFFICER: LABOUR COURT: ROOM NO.45: KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI.
I.D.NO. 50/2006
BETWEEN
The management of
M/s Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd.,
Delhi Bread Unit-1, B- 4 to 8,
Lawrence Road Industrial Area,
Ring Road, New Delhi-110035.
AND
Its workman
Shri Bhola Shanker Dubey
S/o Sh. Sudershan Dubey,
C/o Modern Food Industries Employees Union,
B-89, Gulmohar Park,
New Delhi-110049.
AWARD
Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the
parties named above for adjudication to this Labour Court
vide notification No. F.24 (2742)/2002-Lab./24456-60 dated :-
13.01.2002 with the following term of the reference:-
"Whether the services of Bhola Shanker
Dubey S/o Sh. Shanker Dubey have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what sum of money
as monetary relief along with consequential
-2-
benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt.
Notifications and to what other relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?"
1.The case of the workman, in brief, is that he was employed with the management since 21.10.1989 as a operator production and his last drawn wages were Rs. 2,692/- per month. That he had been working sincerely and honestly and to the entire satisfaction of the management and had never gave any chance of complaint during his service tenure. That the management was not providing any legal and statutory benefits to its employees and is known for its anti Labour and unfair labour practices such as keeping the workers for years on casual basis just to deny them the status of permanent workmen. That the workman is an active member of the Modern Food Industries Employees Union which annoyed the management and the management terminated his employment on 09.01.2002, in violation of provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. That he sent a demand notice through his union to the management which was not replied by the management. It is submitted that he is unemployed since the date of his termination and could not get any employment despite his best efforts. It is prayed that the management be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity in -3- services.
2. The claim is contested by the management. It is submitted that the claimant has not come up before this court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. It is submitted that the claim of the claimant is not maintainable as the same is false and frivolous. It is submitted that the services of the workman were never terminated and the claimant had himself left his employment after taking his full and final dues vide settlement dated 09.07.2002. That the claim of the claimant is liable to be rejected.
3. Rejoinder is filed by the workman in which he has reiterated the contentions raised in the Statement of Claim and has denied the averments of the management in the Written Statement.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 06.07.2004 :-
1. Whether the workman settle his account in full and final?
2. As per terms of reference.
5. Thereafter the case was fixed for workman evidence by way of affidavit and the workman examined himself and the case -4- was adjourned for the cross examination of the workman. Thereafter, workman despite taking number of adjournments did not produce himself for his evidence and also stopped attending the court proceedings and AR of the workman Sh. S.K. Tripathi submitted to the court that the workman is not in his contact and closed workman evidence. I have heard the arguments and also perused the relevant records carefully and my findings on all the issues are as under.
6. It is a settled law that the burden is upon the person, who has set up his claim, to prove his claim in order to succeed.
7. In case M/s GEC Alsthom Ltd. Vs. POIT (1), All HC 1998 (78) FLR 136 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that :
"the burden is on the party who advances a claim and who would fail if no evidence is led to substantiate their claim."
In case Tin Box Company Vs. Inderjit Singh & ors. 2003 (98) FLR 261 (DELHI HIGH COURT) it has been held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.D. Ahmed of Delhi High Court that;
"The workman is to lead evidence first as it is he who has to establish his allegations."-5-
In case A.I. Railway Parcel and Goods Porters Union Vs. Union of India 2003 (99) FLR 203 it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "As per the established principle of law, the petitioners in order to succeed will have to substantiate their claim. Non-production of evidence in opposition will not support the claim of the petitioners even by legal fiction."
8. In the present case, the workman did not produce himself for his cross examination, in order to prove his case, so his statement in evidence is not admissible in the light of law. I hold that since the claimant has failed to prove his case, he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against the workman Sh. Bhola Shanker Dubey. Award is passed accordingly. File be consigned to record room. DATED: - 26.05.2007 (DEEPA SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER:
LABOUR COURT NO.XI:
KKD COURTS:DELHI.
(six separate copies attached)