Delhi District Court
Pradeep vs Ms Miraj Infotech Ltd on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH-WEST,
DWARKA COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
LIR No. 6969/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-007352-2015
Date of institution 22.09.2015
Date of Award 01.04.2026
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Pradeep
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o F-49, Karampura,
New Delhi-110015.
C/o General Mazdoor Union
T-43, Karampura, Near Haryana Dharmshala,
New Delhi-110015. .....Workman
Versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1) M/s Miraj Infotech Ltd.
206, 2nd Floor,
25/14 Miraj Plaza,
East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
Also at:
48 Shakti Appartment Phase-III,
Ashok Vihar behind Laxmi Bai Collage,
Delhi-110052 .....Management
LIR No.6969/16 1 of 9
AWARD
1.Vide this award, I shall decide the reference dated 09.09.2015 sent to this court by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, District-West, Labour Department, NCT of Delhi, bearing no. F-3(215)/15/Ref./WD/Lab./693 with the following terms of reference:-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Pradeep s/o Sh. Ram Kumar 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. Upon receipt of the reference notices were issued to the workman as also to his Union. Workman appeared in the court and filed statement of claim.
CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
3. According to the claimant, he had been working with the management on the post of "Sale Man" since July 1998 and his last drawn wages were Rs.6,000/- per month till the date of termination of his services i.e. 07.04.2015. It is further averred that the workman was working sincerely and did not give any chance for any complaint during the duty period with a blameless service record. The management was not providing the workman various legal facilities and on account of raising such demands, all of a sudden the service of the workman was terminated illegally on 07.04.2015 without payment the arrear of minimum wages w.e.f. January, 2012 till February, 2015 and without giving any reason, notice pay, retrenchment compensation and without conducting any domestic enquiry. The workman sent complaint to the labour department regarding his illegal termination to LIR No.6969/16 2 of 9 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.
4. It is further averred that the workman sent demand notice through speed post to the management on 11.05.2015 with the request to take him back on duty but to no avail. It is prayed that since the act of the management is violative of the Industrial Dispute Act, the management be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. 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.
5. On the basis of the above averments in the claim, notice of this claim was issued to the management. The AR of the management appeared and written statement was filed by it.
REPLY /WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT
6. In its written statement, under the preliminary objection, the management has denied the relationship of employer and employee. It is stated that the management had closed down its business operations on 31.03.2015 and surrendered its VAT registration on 08.04.2015. It is stated that the claimant has not come to the court with clean hands and is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merit, the management has denied almost all the averments made by the workman in his statement of claim except accepting the fact of para 6 to the extent that the Labour Inspector visited the establishment of the management and he had given notice LIR No.6969/16 3 of 9 to the management to appear before the Labour Department. The management denied receipt of demand notice. It is prayed that the claim of the claimant is false and frivolous and is liable to be rejected.
REJOINDER
8. The workman filed rejoinder to the written statement wherein he reiterated the contents of his claim and no new fact mentioned or highlighted.
ISSUES FRAMED
9. After the pleadings were completed, on the basis of the pleadings and the reference the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor on 22.04.2016.
(1) Whether there existed at any point of time any relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman? OPW (2) If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the workman whether services of workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?OPW.
(3) Whether the management has closed his business operations on 31.03.2015 and surrendered its VAT registration on 08.04.2015? If so, to what effect?
OPM.
The matter was then listed for workman's evidence.
LIR No.6969/16 4 of 9 WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
10. 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 the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3. Workman also examined one summoned witness Sh. Subhash Chand Batra, Sr. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank as WW2 who produced the summoned record i.e. application for opening of bank account of the workman alongwith request letter dated 17.08.2004 as Ex.WW2/A (colly.).
MANAGEMENT EVIDENCE
11. Management examined Sh. A.K. Pandey, Managing Director of the management as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon documents Mark MW1/1 i.e. copy of Form DVAT-09 for cancellation of registration.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard final arguments advanced by Ld. AR of the parties and gone through the entire records meticulously including the written submissions filed on behalf of the management and my issues- wise findings are as under.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS Issue No.1:- Whether there existed at any point of time any relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman? OPW LIR No.6969/16 5 of 9
13. It is the case of the workman that he was working with the management as "Salesman" July, 1998 and his services were terminated on 07.04.2015, which fact was denied by the management. The workman has relied upon only three document i.e. carbon copy of the complaint Ex.WW1/1, carbon copy of demand notice dated 11.05.2015 and its original postal receipt Ex.WW1/2 and carbon copy of statement of claim filed before Conciliation Officer Ex.WW1/3.
14. During cross examination, the workman admitted that he has no document to show that he ever employed by the management. He stated that he never made any complaint against the management to any authority regarding non issuance of appointment letter or salary slip. He further admitted that he did not maintain any record qua arrear of salary due against the management. He further admitted that he never signed in any PF/attendance register of the management. He goes on to state that he had not issued any demand notice to the management after his termination. At one instance, he admitted that he has not applied for new job after his termination, however, he again stated that though he applied and got a job in Chawri Bazar but after coming to know about labour dispute, he was denied job.
15. On the other hand, the witness of the management deposed that the management closed its operation since 2016 but the company did not go in liquidation since it sold all the shares of the company. He denied the suggestion that the management company is still existing. He further deposed that the company was incorporated in the year 1999. He denied the suggestion that the workman was working with the management from 1999 till 07.04.2015. He further deposed that the management had its accounts with Kotak Mahindra LIR No.6969/16 6 of 9 Bank and Syndicate Bank. He denied the suggestion that the management stood as an introducer for the opening of the account of the workman with Syndicate Bank. He stated that Mr. Jaspal Singh Rana was working as Peon with the management. However, this witness denied knowledge about signing of document Ex.WW2/A on behalf of the management. He denied that such a letter was never issued by the management and it does not belongs to the management. Though, he stated that the address and phone number mentioned on this document belongs to the management. He further deposed that Mr. Ajay Gogiya used to look after the sales work of the management since 1999 till 2006 and thereafter he himself used to look after the sales. Except above documents, workman has not produced any document in support of his claim that he was ever employed by the management. Further, the workman though sought production of documents, however, the management could not produce the same on the ground that the claimant was never in their employment and they do not have any such documents. Even the workman did not examine any co-worker in his favour.
16. On the other hand, the management witness relied upon Mark MW1/1 i.e. copy of Form DVAT-09 to show that it had closed down its business w.e.f. 08.4.2015. However, the workman could not make any dent in the testimony of this witness to disprove the stand of the management since no suggestion was put to the witness by the workman to falsify this document.
17. Admittedly, the workman could not make any dent in the testimony of the management witness inasmuch as the workman although filed three documents but those documents are only LIR No.6969/16 7 of 9 photocopies and do not support the case of the workman. The workman except himself did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. The workman could have summoned any of co-worker/employee to depose in his favour or could have moved appropriate application for summoning of records from the competent authority to establish that he had actually worked with the management and it is still running its business. On the other hand, the management has proved on record Mark MW1/1 to show its case that it has already closed down in the year 2015.
18. In the given facts and circumstances coupled with the testimonies of the workman and the management witness, it is safe to conclude that the workman never employed/worked with the management, as such, there existed no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the management. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
Issue No. 2 :- If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the workman whether services of workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? OPW.
19. In view of the findings on issue no.1, since the workman has miserably failed to establish that he had ever worked with the management, hence, there is no occasion for the management to terminate his services. Accordingly, issue no.2 is also decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
LIR No.6969/16 8 of 9 Issue No.3 :- Whether the management has closed his business operations on 31.03.2015 and surrendered its VAT registration on 08.04.2015? If so, to what effect? OPM.
20. In view of the above findings coupled with the document Mark MW1/1 i.e. copy of Form DVAT-09, the management has succeeded to prove that it had closed down its business w.e.f. 08.4.2015. However, the workman could not make any dent in the testimony of this witness to disprove the stand of the management since no suggestion was put to the witness by the workman to falsify this document. Accordingly, this issue no.3 is also decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
21. 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.
22. 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 2026.04.01 14:39:51 +0530 today on 01.04.2026 ASHOK KUMAR District Judge-04: South-West, Dwarka Courts Complex New Delhi.
LIR No.6969/16 9 of 9