Delhi District Court
Ratnesh Singh @ Ratan Singh vs M/S. Balaji Industries on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. 02,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1697/19
CNR No. DLCT13-002981-2019
Date of institution 16.07.2019
Date of Award 14.07.2025
Sh. Ratnesh Singh @ Ratan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pukar Singh,
Aged-35 years, Mob. No.8860189052,
R/o 237, Gali No.1, Soniya Vihar Tisra Pusta,
New Delhi.
Through :
Engineering Works Lal Jhanda Union,
I-441, Karampura,
New Delhi-110015. .... Workman.
Versus
(1) M/s Balaji Industries
17/9, Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat,
Near Zakhira Flyover,
Plot No.68A, New Delhi-110005.
(2) M/s Salasar Balaji Industries
17/9, Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat,
Near Zakhira Flyover,
Plot No.68A, New Delhi-110005. ....Managements.
LIR No.1697/19 1 of 14
AWARD
1. Vide this award, I shall decide the reference dated
17.05.2019 sent to this court by the Dy. Labour Commissioner,
District-West, Labour Department, NCT of Delhi, bearing no.
F.3(181)/19/Ref./WD/Lab./582 with the following terms of reference:-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Ratnesh Singh @ Ratan Singh S/o Late
Sh. Ram Pukar Singh 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?"
1.1 Upon receipt of the reference notices were issued to the
workman and also to his Union. Workman appeared in the court and
filed statement of claim.
CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
2. It is stated by the workman that he was appointed by the
management no.1 on the post of Karigar since 01.03.2008. Though he
was designated as Foreman but the management no.1 used to take
work as Karigar. The workman claimed that he lastly withdrawn
monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. It is the case of the workman that he
was not given appointment letter by the management no.1. It is further
the case of the workman that he was neither given any administrative
or supervisory power to the workman nor the workman was vested
any power to appoint, terminate or sanction leave to any employee by
the management.
LIR No.1697/19 2 of 14
2.1 It is further the case of the workman that in the year 2017,
the management no.1 established new concern M/s Salasar Balaji
Industries i.e. management no.2 at the same address and the
management no.1 used to take work from the workman in his both
concerns. Further, Sh. Rakesh, Raj Kumar, Lavelesh, Rata, Mahender,
Sudhir, Jaswant, Anil, Sarwan, Sarvesh, Yogesh, Rahul, Ram Pal,
Rana, Sunil, Maan Singh, Ms. Geeta, Ms. Aarti, Ms. Rekha, Islar,
Rajesh (B), Roshan, Deepak, Anil, Ankit, Om Prakash, Divakar were
also worked with the workman in establishment of managements and
their services were also utilized in both the concerns by the
managements. They the managements used to take work for 10.12
hours from the workman but they were not paid over time wages. The
managements did not provide the workman various legal facilities as
admissible to him under various law such as appointment letter,
attendance card, leave book, weekly off, bonus, overtime, Pay Slip,
PF, HRA etc. The workman claimed to have demanded the said legal
facilities regularly but the managements always gave assurance for
providing all such legal benefits but he was never provided with the
same.
2.2 It is submitted that on account of raising such demands,
the management started to get rid to workman and all of a sudden the
service of the workman was terminated illegally on 17.09.2018
without payment of his earned wages for the month of August and 16
days of September 2018 and without giving any reason, notice pay,
LIR No.1697/19 3 of 14
retrenchment compensation and without conducting any domestic
enquiry.
2.3 It is further averred that the workman sent demand notice
through union to the managements on 12.03.2019 with the request to
take him back on duty but to no avail. The workman also sent
complaint to the labour department regarding his illegal termination
explaining all the facts upon which the Labour Inspector put his
efforts but due to the adverse attitude and anti labour practice of the
management, all the efforts made by him gone fruitless.
2.4 It is prayed that since the act of the management is
violative of the Industrial Dispute Act, the managements be directed to
reinstate him with full back wages and all other consequential
benefits. It is further the averments of the workman that he had
worked continuously with the management since the date of joining
till the date of illegal termination and he neither left his services nor
resigned from the job nor he had taken any full and final payment
from the management. It is further claimed that he made sincere
efforts to get alternate employment but failed to get any employment
and hence he is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination.
3. On the basis of the above averments in the claim, notice
of this claim was issued to both the managements. The AR of the
management no.2 appeared and written statement was filed by it.
LIR No.1697/19 4 of 14
However, despite being served there was no representation from the
management no1. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.10.2021
management no. 1 was proceeded exparte.
REPLY /WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT NO.2
4. In its written statement, the management no.2 has denied
the relationship of employer and employee between them and the
claimant. It is stated that the claim is liable to be rejected for non-
joinder and mis joinder of parties. It is submitted that no firm in the
name of M/s Bala Ji Industries ever existed. It is further submitted that
the correct name of the management is M/s Salasar Balaji Industries
which was running at 17-9, Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat, Near Jakhira
Flyover, Plot No.68/A, New Delhi-110005 up to the existence of the
management M/s Salasar Bala Ji Industries. It is averred that the
management firm was permanently closed after 30.06.2017. The
management denied receipt of any demand notice either from the
workman or any notice from the conciliation officer. It is prayed that
the claim of the workman is false and frivolous and is liable to be
rejected.
REJOINDER
5. The workman filed rejoinder to the written statement of
the management no.2 wherein he reiterated the contents of his claim
and no new fact mentioned or highlighted.
LIR No.1697/19 5 of 14
ISSUES FRAMED
6. After the pleadings were completed, on the basis of the
pleadings and the reference the following issues were framed by Ld.
Predecessor on 10.12.2021.
(1) Whether the claimant had worked in the managements since
01.03.2008 and his services have been illegally and unjustifiably
terminated by the managements on dated 17.09.2018? OPW
(2) Whether the relationship of employee and employer existed
between the claimant and the managements? OPW
(3) Relief.
The matter was then listed for workman's evidence.
WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
7. The workman appeared in the witness box and filed his
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.WW1/A. In this affidavit, the
averments of the claim as mentioned above were reiterated. He relied
upon Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6.
LIR No.1697/19 6 of 14
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE WORKMAN.
Mark WW1/1 Copy of complaint dated
01.10.2018 before Asstt. Labour
Commissioner.
Mark WW1/2 Copy of demand notice dated
12.03.2019.
Ex.WW1/3 Original postal receipt.
Mark WW1/4 Office copy of statement of
claim filed before Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.WW1/5 and Copies of ESI card issued by the
Ex.WW1/6 management.
MANAGEMENT EVIDENCE
8. Management examined Sh. Kunal Aggarwal (Ex.
Proprietor of M/s Salasar Bala Ji Industries) as MW1 who tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon Ex.MW1/1
to Ex. MW1/5.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE MANAGEMENT.
Ex.MW1/1 Copy of DVAT.
Ex.MW1/2 Copy of intimation to ESI dated
14.08.2017 of closure of company.
Ex.MW1/3 (OSR) Copy of inspection report ESID for
closure.
LIR No.1697/19 7 of 14
Ex.MW1/4 (OSR) Copy of full and final settlement with
workman Sh. Ratan.
Ex.MW1/5 (OSR) Statement submitted to ESI
department.
Mark X Copy of letter to DVAT
discontinuation of business.
ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard final arguments advanced by Ld. AR of the
management since AR for the workman has submitted that the
judgement may be pronounced on the basis of material on record. I
have gone through the entire records meticulously and my issue wise
findings are as under.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
10. Issue no.1 and issue no.2 are inter connected and findings
on both the issues would overlap each other. It would be just and
proper if both the issues are decided together. Hence, I am proceeding
to decide issue no.1 and 2 together.
Issue No.1:- Whether the claimant had worked in the managements
since 01.03.2008 and his services have been illegally and unjustifiably
terminated by the managements on dated 17.09.2018? OPW
Issue No.2 :- Whether the relationship of employee and employer
existed between the claimant and the managements? OPW
LIR No.1697/19 8 of 14
10.1 The management no.2 i.e. the answering respondent has
denied employer-employee relationship between the parties from the very inception of the proceedings. The management no.2 has contended that it never employed the claimant Ratnesh Singh at any point of time, rather the management has claimed that one Ratan was employed by them. The workman furnished explanation in his deposition that his employer had started calling him as Ratan even though his name was Ratnesh Singh. He further deposed that he has one ESI by the name of Ratnesh Singh and another ESI card by the name of Rattan Ex.WW1/5 and Ex.WW1/6 respectively. However, when the workman was confronted with photocopy of ESIC card bearing the same insurance number by the management to which the workman admitted that the said document indeed pertains to his ESIC only. The said document was taken on record as Ex.WW1/M1. As such, document relied upon by the workman in his evidence Ex.WW1/6 and the document confronted to the workman Ex.WW1/M1 appear to have the same insurance number. Moreover, the document Ex.WW1/M1 bears the name of the father of the beneficiary as Sh. Shyam Lal whereas as per the own averments of the workman, the name of his father is Sh. Ram Pukar Singh which he clarifies in his deposition. The court is not inclined to place reliance on Ex. WW1/5 and Ex.WW1/6 since both these documents contains different details, rather Ex.WW1/6 is not a complete documents since the workman has filed the photocopy of this document with his photograph covering half the details below it, as such no reliance can LIR No.1697/19 9 of 14 be made on this document. The court finds force in the contention of the management that the insurance number 1114249368 was allotted to its employee Mr. Rattan s/o Sh. Shyam Lal since this document is an internet generated document obtained from the website of insurance firm.
10.2 The workman deposed that the name of his wife is Sunita but in his ESIC record it is shown as Kusum. Though he did not make any complaint when the name of his wife was wrongly mentioned in ESIC record. Claimant failed to give any explanation or evidence on record to prove that Ratnesh and Ratan are the same person. Admittedly, in the Aadhar Card, the name of the claimant/workman is mentioned as Ratnesh Singh s/o Ram Pukar. Further, in the document Ex.WW1/6 i.e. copy of Temporary identity certificate issued by ESIC the name of spouse of the workman is shown as Kusum whereas in the document Ex.WW1/5 i.e. copy of E-Pehchan Card the name of workman's spouse is shown as Sunita Singh. In Ex.WW1/5 the name of employer is shown a Shree Balaji Industries and the date of appointment of workman as 12.02.2018 document Ex.WW1/6 bears the stamp of the employer as Salasar Balaji Industries. The workman could not furnish any explanation in this regard also.
10.3 The workman relied upon Mark WW1/2 i.e. copy of demand notice wherein both the managements are shown to be represented by the same proprietor Sh. Kunal Aggarwal, however, in LIR No.1697/19 10 of 14 the cross examination he stated that as per his knowledge, the proprietor of M/s Sh. Balaji Industries was Kishan Aggarwal.
10.4 The management's stand is that Ratan was employed by them who was provided with all the legal facilities. The management has relied upon ESIC statement from October 2013 to March 2017 Ex.MW1/5 wherein Ratan is shown their workman and as per document Ex.MW1/4 the said workman had settled his full and final dues with the management.
10.5 The next contention of the management no.2 is that it had closed down its business on 30.06.2017. In support of this contention, the management has relied on Mark X i.e. Form DVAT 09 which is an application for cancellation of registration under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 wherein the date of registration of DVAT is shown to be cancelled on 30.06.2017. Similarly, document Ex.MW1/3 is the inspection cum observation report of ESIC which also contains recommendation for closure of management M/s Salasar Balaji Industries w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
10.6 The workman in his cross examination has admitted that presently he is running a tea stall to meet the day to day expenses of his family. As such, he is gainfully employed.
LIR No.1697/19 11 of 14 10.7 The workman in order to prove its contention could have
examined some of the co-workers named by him in the statement of claim to prove the factum of both the managements being run at the same address and that he was working with both the managements but the workman chose not to examine any co-worker in his favour, which clearly imply that the workman has nothing to prove his contention raised in the statement of claim.
10.8 It has been repeatedly held that so far as an Industrial claim is concerned, it's procedure is also guided by the general principles of the law of evidence that he who asserts must prove. Based on the rule of Roman Law - `ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat' - the 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 does not admit of direct and simple proof. It is well settled that the onus and burden of proof of establishing the termination of employment is on the workman. The workman can discharge the same by leading cogent and reliable evidence in respect thereof which could be oral or documentary. However in this case no evidence other than the bald testimony of the workman himself was brought on record to prove that his services were terminated by the management on account of his repeated demands for minimum wages and other allowances.
LIR No.1697/19 12 of 14 10.9 Filing of an affidavit is merely a self serving statement in
one's own favour and it cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence by this court to come to the conclusion that the workman has been unlawfully terminated. [For this view reliance is placed upon the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGC Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Shayamlal Chandra Bhowmik, (2006) 1 SCC 337].
10.10 Thus, in view of the evidence led, rather the lack of the evidence in this regard, the workman has failed to establish that his services were terminated by the management in an illegal and unjustifiable manner rather the management has been able to prove that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Accordingly, issue no.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
Issue No.3 : Relief.
11. In view of the above findings on issue no.1 and 2, workman is held not entitled to any relief. The issue no.3 is also decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
12. Reference is answered accordingly. The attested copy of the award be sent to the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication, as per rules.
LIR No.1697/19 13 of 14
13. Judicial file be consigned to Record Room, as per rules, after due compliance. Digitally signed by ASHOK ASHOK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Announced in the Open Court 2025.07.14
15:35:29
today on 14.07.2025 +0530
ASHOK KUMAR
Presiding Officer, Labour Court -2
Rouse Avenue Courts,
New Delhi.
LIR No.1697/19 14 of 14