Delhi District Court
Shri Jagdish Rajat vs M/S Happy Hours Overseas on 16 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURTXIX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
LIR No. 292/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0 291152009
Shri Jagdish Rajat
S/o Shri Shambhu Rajat
C/o Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikas Sangthan (Regd.)
CB6, Ring Road, Naraina
New Delhi - 110 028 ..............................WORKMAN
Versus
M/S Happy Hours Overseas
CB228/D, Ring Road, Naraina
Near Petrol Pump,
New Delhi - 110 028 .......................MANAGEMENT
Date of institution : 01.10.2009
Date of reserving the award : 16.5.2013
Date of award : 16.5.2013
Ref. No. F.24(1480)/08/SWD/Lab/4218 dated 13.8.2009
A W A R D
Having satisfied regarding existence of an industrial dispute
between the parties, the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of
LIR No. 292/2011 1 of 5
Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by section 10(1)(c) and section
12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Labour Department Notification No. F.1/31/616/Estt./2008/7458 dated 03rd
March 2009 of Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the present dispute to
Labour Court No. XIX for adjudication with the following terms of
reference:
"Whether services of Shri Jagdish Rajat S/o Shri
Shambhu Rajat have been illegally and/or unjustifiably
terminated by the management; and if yes, to what relief
is he entitled?
2. Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman
alleging therein that he joined the management on 01.4.2006 as Pressman
and his last drawn salary was Rs.3000/ per month and he was having
clean service record. It was alleged that he was not issued any
appointment letter but his signatures were obtained on a blank
appointment letter whose copy was also not given to him. He further
alleged that he was not provided with any legal facilities like PF, bonus
etc. And on his repeated demands, his services were terminated on
19.5.2008. The workman sent a demand notice dt. 05.6.2008 and also filed a complaint before the Labour Office, Hari Nagar but the management did not respond. Hence, through this claim the workman has prayed for his LIR No. 292/2011 2 of 5 reinstatement and back wages with continuity of service with all consequential benefits.
3. The management appeared and opposed the claim by filing WS wherein all the allegations were refuted specifically and categorically. The management disputed the relationship of master and servant between it and the workman and thus, prayed for dismissal of claim.
4. The workman filed the rejoinder wherein he reinstated the pleadings of his claim and countered the allegations made in the WS. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 12.10.2011 as under :
1). Whether there existed relationship of employee and employer between the parties? OPW
2). Whether the claimant is a 'workman' as defined U/S 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPW
3). Whether management is an 'industry' as defined U/S 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPM
4). Whether services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management on 19.5.2008? OPW
5). Relief.
5. The matter was fixed for workman's evidence and was LIR No. 292/2011 3 of 5 adjourned for a no. of dates for the same purpose. He avoided appearing in the Court while his AR Shri Anjani Kumar appeared and submitted that he is not in contact with the workman and even he is not attending the proceedings in this case for long and therefore, he does not want to lead any evidence. A bare perusal of file reveals that the workman has not attended the proceedings for the last about two years. Hence, WE was closed. Similarly, the management also did not led any evidence and closed the same.
6. I have heard learned AR for the parties. My issue wise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1 :
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman but he failed to lead any evidence on record and thus, failed to prove that he was an employee of the management. There was no document filed or proved by him to show his relationship of master and servant with the management. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman .
ISSUE No. 2 and 4 :
8. The onus to prove these issues was also upon the workman LIR No. 292/2011 4 of 5 but in view of the findings on the above Issue, the workman has failed to prove that the management is an 'industry' as defined in Section 2(j) of the ID Act and since he has failed to prove his relationship with the management, there is no question of his illegal termination from his services by the management. Hence, these issues are also decided against the workman and in favour of the management. ISSUE No. 3 :
9. The onus to prove this issue was upon the management but in view of the findings on the above issues, this issue has become redundant. ISSUE No. 5/Relief :
10. As observed above, there had been no evidence by the workman nor any documents proved by him on record, he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, a No Relief Award is hereby passed.
Reference is answered accordingly. Copy of this award be sent for publication . File be consigned to Record Room. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16th day of May 2013 (SANJAY SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTXIX KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI LIR No. 292/2011 5 of 5