Delhi District Court
Through vs M/S. Soft Imaging & Medical Solutions on 17 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANKIT SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - X
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No.1731/17
Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Man Phool,
R/o S-621, School Block,
Nehru Enclave, Delhi-110092
Contact No.9212290225.
Sh. Pramod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Ban Ram,
R/o 144/1, Block-A,
Raja Vihar, Badli, Delhi-110042
Contact No.9953424512
Through
Sh. Delhi Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.
No.3595), A-217, Karampura,
New Delhi-110015.
... Workman
Versus
M/s. Soft Imaging & Medical Solutions,
401-402, 4th Floor, Gupta, Complex,
Old Rohtak Road, Inderlok,
Delhi-110035.
... Management
Date of institution of the case : 07.06.2017
Date of passing the Award : 17.12.2022.
A W A R D:
LIR No.1731/17 Page: 1/6
Raj Kumar Vs. M/S Soft Imaging and Medical Solutions
1.The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Delhi exercising his powers conferred by virtue of Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 read with Notification No.F.24(38)/267/Co- I/16/Lab./144 dated 26.05.2017, had sent the following reference to this Court for determination:-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Man Phool Singh & Sh. Pramod Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Sadhu Ban Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Separate statement of claims were filed by the claimants Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Pramod Kumar. But, during court proceedings claimant, Sh. Raj Kumar settled the matter with the management, and matter continued for claimant Sh. Pramod Kumar, therefore, by this judgment this court will answer the reference qua Sh. Pramod Kumar.
3. Notice of this reference was sent to the workman Sh. Pramod Kumar and his union and the workman Sh. Pramod Kumar filed his statement of claim. In the said statement of claim, he averred that he had been working with the management for the last 1 years and 3 months as a "Karigar" at monthly salary of Rs. 17,500/-. The workman was performing his duty with utmost satisfaction with the management and has unblemished and uniterrupted record of his services to this credit. The workman further stated that the management had denied the legal benefits i.e., appointment letter, casual leave, bonus, PF etc. to him. He also stated LIR No.1731/17 Page: 2/6 Raj Kumar Vs. M/S Soft Imaging and Medical Solutions that the management has also another establishment in the same name at A25, Naresh Park, Nangloi, Delhi, in which he has worked as per instructions of the management. He further stated that when he made a demand of legal facilities, the management got irritated and thereafter the management took his signature on some blank papers and vouchers etc., on pretext to use in future. Thereafter, his services were terminated w.e.f. 29.03.2016, without making payment of the earned wages/ salary for the month of January, February and March, 2016. On the basis of aforesaid facts, it is prayed that management may be directed to reinstate him with full back wages with all consequential benefits.
4. In its written statement, the management has taken defence that the present matter is without cause of action, because the workman never worked it and there is no employee-employer relationship between the workman and the management. The management stated in WS that all the allegations and averments made by the workman are false and frivolous and are product of evil mind of the alleged workman.
No rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman to WS of management.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide his order dated 04.05.2022 framed the following issues: -
1. Whether services of the workman have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably?OPW.
2. Relief.
6. In order to discharge the onus, the workman himself appeared as witness and filed affidavit of his evidence which is exhibited as Ex.
LIR No.1731/17 Page: 3/6 Raj Kumar Vs. M/S Soft Imaging and Medical Solutions WW2/A, wherein, he reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn affirmation. He was cross-examined at length. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is proposed to be dealt with at the time of finding on issues. He did not examine any other witness in support of his claim, therefore, after his evidence, workman's evidence was closed.
7. Besides his oral testimony, he also placed on record following documents to prove his case: -
S. Particulars of documents Exhibits /
No. Mark
1. Copy of legal demand notice dated 24.11.2016 Ex. WW1/1
2. Postal receipt of legal demand notice Ex.WW1/2
3. Copy of complaint dated 18.10.2016 Ex.WW1/3
4. Copy of statement of claim filed before the Ex.WW1/4
Conciliation Officer
5. Copy of rejoinder filed before the Conciliation Ex.WW1/5
Officer
6. Photocopy of letter dated 29.05.2015 Mark-A
8. The management examined Sh. Manish Kumar, who is director of the management as witness. He was examined as MW-1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. MW1/B. In his affidavit Ex. MW1/B, he reiterated averments made in written statement. He was cross-examined at length by AR of the workman. The relevant LIR No.1731/17 Page: 4/6 Raj Kumar Vs. M/S Soft Imaging and Medical Solutions portion of his cross-examination is proposed to be dealt with at the time of finding on issues.
Thereafter, management's evidence was also closed and matter was posted for final arguments.
9. Final arguments were heard and now, in the light of evidence available on record and submissions made by the parties, my issue-wise findings are as under: -
10. ISSUE NO. 1- Whether the services of workman Sh. Pramod Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Sadhu Ban Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect; The onus to prove issue No. 1 was on the claimant. In order to discharge this onus the claimant orally mentioned that he was an employee of the management and was working with the management at salary of Rs.17,500/-, however, he failed to prove any document showing that he was an employee of the management. He has placed on record one document which is Mark-X, however, this document is photocopy of letter head of the management wherein it is mentioned that Sh. Pramod Kumar is an employee of the company, but this document has not been signed by any person. Moreover, neither the original of Mark-X has been produced nor any explanation has been given for non-filing of the same.
Since, Mark-X is unsigned document and same is photocopy, same cannot be read in evidence in favour of the claimant and against the management.
The Claimant also failed to examine any co-worker or any other person to corroborate his testimony. In nutshell, there is nothing on LIR No.1731/17 Page: 5/6 Raj Kumar Vs. M/S Soft Imaging and Medical Solutions record to corroborate the oral claim of the claimant that he was employee of the management. The management through testimony of its witness, Sh. Manish Kumar stated that claimant Pramod Kumar was not its employee. MW-1, Sh. Manish Kumar, remained consistent during his testimony. AR for claimant failed to extract any admission to support claimant's claim during the cross-examination of MW-1.
No explanation has been provided as to why the court should disbelieve the testimony of MW-1 and believe the testimony of claimant that he was an employee of the management. Since, the primary burden to prove the employee-employer relationship was upon the claimant and the claimant's oral testimony has been countered by the oral testimony of MW- 1, Sh. Manish Kumar, the said burden remain undischarged and since, the claimant has failed to discharged the onus that he was an employee of the management, the question of his illegal and unjustifiable termination does not arise. Accordingly, the question whether claimant's services were illegally terminated and whether he is entitled for any relief is answered in negative. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
11. Award is accordingly passed. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms. Copy of award be sent to Labour Commissioner for publication. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 17th Day of December, 2022 (Ankit Singla) Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi LIR No.1731/17 Page: 6/6 Raj Kumar Vs. M/S Soft Imaging and Medical Solutions