Delhi District Court
Id No. 165/11 (Old Id No. 503/10) vs M/S. Orient Craft Ltd on 28 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
ID No. 165/11 (Old ID No. 503/10)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN :
Sh. Mohd. Sharif S/o Sh. Sahabuddin
Through: Delhi Hosiery Workers Union (Regd.),
1800/09 Govind Puri Ext., Kalkaji
New Delhi19 ........Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s. Orient Craft Ltd.
F8 Okhla PhaseI
New Delhi20 ......Management
Date of Institution :08.07.2010
Date of award
: 28.05.2014
AWARD
1. The Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT, Delhi vide order
No. F. 24(512)/Lab./SD/09/5416 dated 31.05.10 referred the present
industrial dispute between the parties for adjudication to the Labour
Court on the following terms of reference :
"Whether the services of Sh. Mohd. Sharif S/o Sh. Shahbuddin
have been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the
ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 1 out of 22
Management, if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Brief facts as stated in the claim petition are that the
workman was working with the management w.e.f. 23.11.05 as Tailor
and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4368/p.m. He worked honestly
and management has no complaint against him. The main work of the
management was to prepare readymade garment and for this purpose
they had employed more than 800 workers. Hence, Industrial rules
(regulation & Abolition) 1970 is applied on the management and
modal standing order also applied on the management. The
management was not providing any kind of facilities like,
appointment letter, wage slip, leave book, bonus festival or medical
leave and therefore, workman was opposing and due to which
management got annoyed and Sh. K.K. Kohli terminated the services
of workman without giving any notice or disclosing any reason
though he has worked for more than 240 days. The claimant has sent
the demand letter dt. 23.09.09 to the management but management
did not reply to the same, therefore, the claimant filed the claim
petition before the Labour Department through union dt.06.11.09 and
thereafter on 24.11.09 made complaint but management did
cooperated, hence the case is referred before this court. Further it is
ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 2 out of 22
stated that the claimant has worked under the supervision & control
of management's officers but management used to show his record to
the contractor in violation of Contract (rules & Regulations) Act. It is
further stated that when the claimant was removed from the service
junior were working or the said work was being done by his junior or
new employees. The workman is unemployed since the date of
termination. He seeks relief of reinstatement alongwith back wages
and other consequential benefits.
3. Per contra, the management filed written statement and
preliminary objection was taken by the management that the claimant
is not employee of the management and therefore, there is no
relationship of employer and employee between the management and
the workman/claimant, hence the question of illegal termination does
not arise. Therefore, no industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act arise
between the claimant and management. It is stated that the claimant
was working with M/s Bajrang Fashion, Badarpur, New Delhi who
had deployed him at the factory of the managements for the short
duration. On merit all the contents of the statement of claim were
stated wrong and denied. It is stated that the has been working with
the management from 23.11.05 and/or his last drawn salary was Rs.
ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 3 out of 22
4368/ p.m. Further it is denied that the management was required to
claimant was required to give any legal facilities to the claimant. As
he was not in the employment of respondent/management. Further it
is stated that all the legal facilities was provided by the management to his own employee. Further it is denied that when the claimant demanded the facilities he was removed by sh. K.K. Kohli, Further it is denied that the claimant has sent a demand notice dt. 23.09.09 or that the labour inspector Jagdish Singh visited to the respondent and respondent refused employment at any point of time. Since he was never employed by the management, therefore, no question of taking him back on duty arise. Further it is denied that management violated the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act) or that the management was keeping dummy contractor. Hence, it prayed that the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
4. Later on at the time of final arguments Ld. AR for workman filed an application for amendment in the claim petition, the application was allowed and Ld. ARW filed the amended statement of claim in which it is mentioned that the claimant was removed from the service on 31.07.09 by Sh. K.K. Kohli besides this all the other contents are same as mentioned in first claim petition. ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 4 out of 22
5. From the pleading of both parties, vide order dated 23.03.2012, the following issues have been framed :
1. Whether there is no relationship exist of employer and employee between the workman and management?
2. In terms of reference.
6. In order to prove issue, the workman examined himself as WW1, through an affidavit Ex.WW1/A and also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/6. He was cross examined at length by Ld. AR for management.
7. On the other hand management examined Sh. B.K. Tripathi, Asstt. Manager, of management as MW1 who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and also relied upon documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3.
8. After completion of evidence on behalf of both parties, I have heard the arguments from Sh.Neeraj Chaudhary Ld. AR for workman and Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Ld. AR for management. I have considered the arguments of Ld. ARs for both parties and carefully gone through the material placed on record. My issue wise findings ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 5 out of 22 are as under: Issue no.1
1. Whether there is no relationship exist of employer and employee between the workman and management?
9. The management in the written statement has denied the relationship of employeremployee. It is stated that the claimant has worked for some days in his firms as contract labour as he was employee of M/s Bajrang Fashion. In order to prove that the workman is not his employee. The management examined Sh. B.K. Tripathi its Asstt. Manager Personnel as MW1. He has deposed in his affidavit Ex.MW1/A that the claimant was never employee of management and he was employee of M/s Bajrang Fashion, Badarpur New Delhi. M/s Bajrang Fashion has appointed him at the factory of management for a short duration. Hence, there was no question of employeremployee relationship or termination of his service arise. Further he deposed that when ever an employee is employed by the management, his name is entered in the muster roll of the company and that he apart from other facilities, is provided with PF facilities. ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 6 out of 22 He proved copy of salary and muster roll for the month of October 2005 and November 2005 as Ex.MW1/1, copy of salary and muster roll for the month of June, July and August, 2009 as Ex.MW1/2. Copy of the PF eligibility register for the period October 2005 to December 2006 as Ex.MW1/3.(colly.) In his cross examination he admitted that management deals in business of manufacturing of ready made garments and about 1000 worker are working with the management presently and at relevant time. He also admitted that the work of tailor is an essential ingredient of the management without which it can not run. He also admitted that he has not filed any record pertaining to the tailor before this court. He also stated that management is registered under the Contract Labour ( R & A) Act, 1970 but he is not sure from which date registration certificate was issued and he also not sure about the year of the issuing of registration certificate. He stated that Mr. Kunj Bihari is the contractor of the management who is working under the name and style of M/s Bajrang Fasion. He also stated that he is not sure if Mr. Kunj Bihari was working under the name and style of Om Garments prior to year 2008. About 500 employee were working with the Bajrang Fashion. He stated that he did not know the name of the ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 7 out of 22 owners of M/s Bajrang Fashios and Om Garments. M/s Bajrang Fashios and Om Garments have licence under CLIR. He had seen the licence personally. The management has taken photocopy of licence from the contractor whenever necessary. He admitted that the sewing machine which was used by the workman was belonged to the management and the electricity bill was paid by the management. He further stated that he is not aware whether the material which have been made can be rejected by the management or not. He also not aware whether the order for specific good is place by the management or not. The raw material which has been used in preparing the garment is provided by the management. He do not aware whether the prepared goods are to be checked by the management or not. He admitted that Mr. K.K. Kohli is the Director of management. He stated that he is not aware as to whether Mohd. Shamim is supervisor of the management. He denied that Mr. K.K. Kohli appointed, supervise and terminated the workman. He denied the suggestion that management used to deduct the ESI and PF contributions and deposit the same with the authority. Thus, from the testimony of the MW1 it is evident that he has completely denied the claimant being its employee and only stated that the claimant is employee of M/s. ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 8 out of 22 Bajrang Fashion and was deployed in the same for short time during his service at the premises of management.
10. On the other hand workman examine himself to prove he is employee of management. In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, he has deposed that he was appointed by Sh. K.K. Kohli, Director of management. He was not given any appointment letter, pay slip, wages slip, leave book, bonus, festival and medical leave and was terminated by Sh. K.K. Kohli on 31.07.09. He has also deposed that he has worked under the control and supervision of Mohd. Samim, supervisor and Rama, Incharge and he was being paid salary by Sh. R.D. Singh who also deduct the ESI & PF contribution. He also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6. In his cross examination he stated that he has given application to the management for employment. He was not issued any appointment letter despite asking. He had not asked in writing to give appointment letter. He was shown to be employed through fake contractor namely Kunj Bihari. He admit that ESI Card EXWW1/5 &6 were issued by Om Garment and Bajrang Fashion. He was provided ESI facilities from the start of his employment by the contractor as and when he was employed by them.
ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 9 out of 22
11. Thus from the testimony of both workman as well as management witness it is evident that claimant was working in the management factory and only dispute is that whether he was employed by management or was a contact labour employed by contractor deployed at management factory. Secondly if he was employed by contractor whether contract was genuine or sham. The onus is on the claimant to prove that he was employed by management. In N.C. John Vs. Secretary Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers Union and others 1973 Lab, IC 398, the Kerala High Court held that:
" the burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employeremployee relationship and adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employeremployee relationship."
In R.M. Yellatti Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer (2006)1 SCC 106 . the Supreme Court observed as follows: "...........However, applying general principles and on reading the (aforesaid) judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of dailywaged earners, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 10 out of 22 also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register, etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case."
26. Applying the principles laid down in the above case by this Court, the evidence produced by the appellant has not been consistent. The appellant claims that the respondent did not work for 240 days. The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this Court pointed out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official documents, muster rolls, etc. in connection with his service. He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the appellant employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service."
12. The following principles laid down by the Supreme Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani Court in (2002) 3 SCC 25 : "3............ in our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but his claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filling of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On the ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside."
ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 11 out of 22
13. Further I am agree with the contention of Ld. AR for the management that claimant statement in the affidavit to the effect that he had was employee and worked continuously for 240 days in a year was by itself is not sufficient proof, to establish the employer employee's relationship. He is required to prove the same by producing reliable documentary evidence. like , appointments letter, wages slip,muster role or any other documents of similar nature, as stated Automobile Association of Upper India vs P.O. Labour Court II and Anothers 2006LLR551. In this case our own High Court held as under: "14. Engagement and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of an appointment letter, a written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave record, deposit of provident fund contribution and employees state insurance contributions etc.
14. The workman has admitted that he was not given appointment letter, wages slip, or leave book etc.. hence, no question of proving the same arise. He stated that since he was demanding the said facilities, therefore, management was annoyed but he has failed to explain why he has not filed any complaint before the labour department or any other authority that he is not being provided all this facilities. Hence, his oral testimony that he was not given ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 12 out of 22 appointment letter cannot be accepted. As far as documents relied upon by the workman i.e. Ex.WW1/1 is copy of demand letter dt. 22.09.09 where by workman has sought his reinstatement Ex.WW1/2 is receipt and Ex.WW1/3 is A.D. card regarding sent to the letter to the management and Ex.WW1/4 is the complained filed before the Labour department thus, all these documents are irrelevant to the extent of prove of relationship of employeremployee Ex.WW1/5 is ESI card of the workman Ex.WW1/6 from the perusal of the document it is not apparent that the name of the employer is not mentioned and only employee. But the workman in his cross examination has admitted that he was provided to ESI by the M/s Om Garment and M/s Bajrang Fashion , therefore, these documents did not prove that the workman is employee of management rather it is against the workman and proved that he was employee of contractor. From the documents produced by the workman he has not been able to prove that he was employed by the management and work for more than 240 days with the management. On the other hand management has proved salary record EXMW1/1 & MW1/2 and attendance register EXMW1/3 (all collectively) which does not contain name of claimant. Hence it proved that claimant was not ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 13 out of 22 getting wages from management or was not marking attendance in the attendance register in which employee of management were marking there attendance. Hence from the documents proved by management it is proved that he was not employee of management.
15. As far as the contentions of Ld. AR for workman that he has worked under the control and supervision of the management's officials namely Mohd. Shamim (supervisor) and Rama (incharge). In the cross examination MW1 B.K. Tripathi has categorically stated that he is not aware that Md. Shamim was supervisor of the management and Rama was incharge of the management. The onus is upon the workman to prove that they were official of the management but he has not filed any document in this regard neither he has examined any co worker to corroborate his testimony that there were any employee of management with the name of Mohd. Shamim or Rama. More ever claimant in his statement of claim had not mentioned that he was working under the control and supervision of aforesaid management official hence same appear to be after thought probably stated in the affidavit on the advice of his AR. Therefore, I held that workman has failed to prove that he was working under the control and supervision of the officials of management. ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 14 out of 22
16. Further the claimant admitted in the cross examination that Om garment is registered with ESI, the ESI card Ex.WW1/5 & Ex.WW1/6 were issued by the Om Garment and Ms. Bajrang Fashion. He admitted that he was provided with the ESI facilities by the contractor right from the start from his employment. Undoubtedly, I am agree with the contention of AR for workman that the providing the ESI & PF is not sufficient to prove the employment because it is statutory responsibility to provide these facilities by employer but in my view, this responsibility is upon contractor but if he failed to do so then principal employer is to provide the said facilities. In the present case as per claimant principle employer is management where as the ESI facilities is provided by OM Garment or Bajrang Fashion which prove that the claimant was employee of contractor and not of the management as stated above. The workman was very well aware that he was being provided ESI facilities by the contractor he has never raised objection prior to his alleged termination why he has been provided the ESI facilities by the contractor which clearly prove that the workman was very well aware that he was employee of the contractor and not employed by management. Workman in his cross examination has stated that he was shown to be employee of ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 15 out of 22 fabricated contractor namely Kunj Bihari who was running his firm in the name of M/s Bajrang Fashion but admitted that he has not made complaint to the labour department during the employment to that effect that he was shown as employee of fabricate firm as Om Garments Hence I do not find his testimony reliable that claimant was fraudently shown as employee of contractor. Therefore, in these circumstances I held that workman has failed to proved that he was employed by the management.
17. On perusal of the markA which is registration certificate issued by Labour Department U/s 7 of the Contract Labour Act, proved that management has got registration with Govt. for contract labour through Om Garments for providing the labour sewing, striches garments from the Delhi Government on 02.08.05 which was provided for the period of 1.08.05 to 31.07.06 and it was subsequently extended till 31.07.08 and other documents shows that , thereafter, management has engaged new contractor M/s Shankar Garment from 02.01.08 to 31.12.08 and also with M/s Bajrang Fashion from 01.08.08 to 31.07.09. Hence, these documents clearly prove that management has got registration for taking labour on contract from contractors for stitching & sewing. ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 16 out of 22
18. The another contention of the Ld. ARW that the contract between the management and contractor was sham and camouflage contract. The onus is on the workman to prove the same. The Ld. ARW has contended that MW1 B.K. Tripathi has admitted in his testimony that sewing machine which were used by the workman was belonged to the management and the electricity bill of the same was paid by the management. The raw material for preparing the garments was provided by the management. Hence, it is proved that the entire economy control on the activity of the workman was of management and not of contractor. Therefore, it is proved that the contract was shame and camouflage but I am not agree with the said contention. Merely these admission did not proved that the workman was working under the control and supervision of management. Though definitely this can be one of the criteria to determine whether contract is sham and camouflage as held in judgement The management of Ashok Hotel vs Their workman W.P.(c) 14828/2006 dt. 19.12.2013, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd vs State of U.P. 2003111LLJ 216, GM, ONGC Shilchar vs ONGC Contractual worker Union 2008LLR 801. In these case Higher courts has held while relying upon Hussain Bhai Calicut Vs Alath ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 17 out of 22 Factory Thozhilali Union Khozikhode AIR 1978 SC 1410 that :
"5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers laborers, to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contracts is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth though drapped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor, Myriad devices, halfhidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer based on Articles 38, 39, 42,43 and 43A of the Constitution. The court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law an not be misled by the maya of legal appearances.
6. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the makebelieve, trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap the real lifebond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off."
19. But in my view to prove that contract is sham and camouflage something more is required to proved beside economic control. The test is who pays salary,who could take disciplinary action, or remove workman or deployed at a particular place. In International Airport Authority vs. International Air Cargo Workers union and another 2009 (13) SCC374, it is held that :
ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 18 out of 22
7." The industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that contract between principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employer and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like: who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who can tell the employee the way in which the work should be done, in short who has direction and control over the employee. But where there is no notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in the industrial adjudication that the contract was sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing the principal employer to absorb or regularize the services of the contract labour does not arise. The tests that are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage.
For example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor."
20. Workman has failed to led any reliable evidence like wage slip or salary register to prove that he was paid salary by management. On the other hand since contribution of ESI of ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 19 out of 22 workman was paid by Contractor therefore it could be presumed that he was being paid salary by Contractor. Further management has proved on record salary record of its employee EXMW1/1 & MW1/2 (collectively) of the relevant period which do not contain name of claimant which prove that salary to the workman was not paid by the management. Further no such suggestion has been given to the management witness that could take disciplinary action, or remove workman or deployed at a particular place. Hence workman has failed to prove that he was working under the control and supervision of the management.
21. As far as judgment Workmen of the Food Corporation of India vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India, C. A. No. 1055 (NL) of 1981 dt.28th Feb 1985 IILLJ4 is concerned is not applicable as in that case workmen were appointed through a contractor and afterwards the contract system was abolished and the handling labour workman were paid wages by FCI directly and when FCI tried to re induct the contractor as an intermediary. The workman complaint and notice u/s 9A of the I.D. Act was issued to the management. In these circumstances, it was held that by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where ever management proposed to have any change in any ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 20 out of 22 condition of the service applicable to any workman he is required to give notice of desire or his intended change and held that once workmen have become the workmen of Corporation it is not permissible to treat the workmen as workmen of contractor but in this case, as discussed above the workman have failed to prove that they were ever employed by the management and then were transfer to contractor or that he was being paid wages by Management directly, hence the judgement is not applicable in the present case.
22. Similarly judgement workman of Swatantra Bharat Mills Canteen vs Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills 1985(50) Delhi HC is not applicable as in that case canteen which was run by the trust which trustees were workers or officer in the employment of management. Secondly the trust property was no specific trust property except the balance amont lying in the employee benefit fund and sickness insurance fund account which was transferred to the trustees lying since 1940 in that account and rest of amount was to be transferred time to time. Therefore High Court come to the conclusion that in that circumstances Trust was no better than a department or a branch of management therefore High Court held that the employee of canteen run by trust are actually employee of management whereas ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 21 out of 22 in the case in hand claimant have failed to led any evidence to proved that Contractor are employee of management or Contractor are fake identity.
23. In view of aforesaid discussion I held that workmen have been failed to proved that there is any employer employee's relationship between them and Management. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided against the workmen.
RELIEF
24. In view of my finding on issue no.1, I held that claimant is not entitle to any relief and her claim petition is dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly. Copy of award be sent to the Secretary Labour, Govt. of NCT, Delhi for publication of the award. The award be also sent to server (www.delhicourts.nic.in). File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on this 28th May, 2014 (Sanjeev Kumar) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi.
ID NO. 165/11 Mohd. Sarif Vs. M/s. Orient Crafts Ltd. Page no. 22 out of 22