Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: hamdard in Son Pal @ Sohan Pal & Ors. vs . M/S. Hamdard Public School Id No. ... on 4 August, 2014Matching Fragments
With these averments workmen have prayed for an award in their favour and against the management for their reinstatement in service continuity of service and full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits to which workmen are entitled.
5. CASE OF MANAGEMENT AS PLEADED IN WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF MANAGEMENT As per management, workman Mr. Son Pal and 17 others were never employed by management of M/s. Hamdard Public School and, as such, no relationship of employer and employees / master & servants ever exists / existed between them and management, and, as such, they are not workmen as defined Page 5 to 24 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/04.08.2014 Son Pal @ Sohan Pal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hamdard Public School ID No. 292/14 under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, no industrial dispute as defined under section 2 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is / was in existence and, as such, the reference is bad and incompetent in law and no adjudication proceedings can take place on the basis of present order of reference.
Workmen relied upon documents: Ex.WW1/1 - Complaint (dated 15.04.2004) made by Mr. M. Ram, General Secretary of the union on behalf of workmen to Assistant Labour Commissioner (S); Ex.WW1/2 - Complaint (dated 28.05.2004) made by Mr. M. Ram, General Secretary of the union on behalf of workmen to Assistant Labour Commissioner (S); Ex.WW1/3 & Ex.WW1/4 - Complaints made by Mr. M. Ram, General Secretary of the union on behalf of workmen to Assistant Labour Commissioner (S); Ex.WW1/5 - Complaint made by Mr. M. Ram, General Secretary of the union on behalf of Page 7 to 24 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/04.08.2014 Son Pal @ Sohan Pal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hamdard Public School ID No. 292/14 workmen to Assistant Labour Commissioner (S); Ex.WW1/6 - Complaint (dated 04.08.2004) made by Mr. M. Ram, General Secretary of the union on behalf of workmen to Assistant Labour Commissioner (S), Mark - A and B - Photocopy of proceedings conducted by Labour Office; Mark - C - Report of Labour Inspector regarding his visit at management on 08.06.2004 and Ex. MW1/W1 - Copy of evidence of MW1 Mohd. Shahid Khan recorded before Minimum Wages Authority in the case of Son Pal and Ors. Vs. Hamdard Public School. Workman's evidence was closed on 03.05.2013 by ARW.
Management examined MW1 Mohd. Shahid Khan. Management relied upon documents: Ex. MW1/W2 (also Mark - M1) - Photocopy of Agreement between Hamdard Education Society and M/s Arjun Singh Caterer and Mark - M2 - Letter (dated 27.03.2003) written by Mr. Saiyid Hamid, Secretary, Hamdard Education Society to Mr. Arjun Singh, Mess Contractor regarding Extension of the tenure of Agreement dated 01.05.2002. Management's evidence was closed on 21.03.2014 by Mr. Pankaj Malik, Advocate.
10. My ISSUEWISE findings are as under: ISSUE NO.1:
Whether there existed relationship of master and servant between the parties? (OPW) Initial burden of proving that their existed relationship of master and servant between management and workmen is on the workmen. Workmen are supposed to discharge this onus on the basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities. Standard of proof required is not that high that the workmen are Page 9 to 24 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/04.08.2014 Son Pal @ Sohan Pal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Hamdard Public School ID No. 292/14 supposed / required to prove that there existed relationship of employer and employee by leading evidence of the nature / quality so that it may be said, beyond all reasonable doubts, that there existed such relationship between employer and workmen. Workmen are to prove existence of such relationship on the basis of application of principle of preponderance of probabilities (i.e. there is every / likely possibility of existence of such relationship keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case.) HERE, workmen are claiming to have been employed by management to run canteen in the premises of Hamdard Public School / management as Halwai / Cook / Helper / Waiter from the dates of their appointments in the years 1993 / 1996 / 1997 / 1998 / 2000 till 01.06.2004, on which date management, allegedly, illegally terminated their services by way of refusal of duty w.e.f. 01.06.2004 on account of workmen raising demand(s) for legal facilities and filing a case before Conciliation Officer for regularization of their service with the management.