-1- IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY]: PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. XVII, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI . [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN The Workman Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] C/o [ENTITY], Advocate, Ch. No. L-8, [ENTITY], Gate No.2, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi- 110054. AND The management of M/s Madnani Rainbow Couters A-89, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi- 110034. AWARD 1. Workman has filed statement of claim on 24.01.2006 stating therein that he was employed with the management since September 1995 at the post of [ENTITY] and his last drawn wages were Rs.3000/- per month and he was working sincerely and diligently to the satisfaction of management and never gave any chance of complaint to the management. It is stated that management was not providing the legal facilities i.e. appointment letter, attendance card, attendance register, pay slip, CL, EL, bonus etc. and the workman orally demanded the same from the management many times but the management only provided ESI facility to the workman after 8 years from the joining. It is stated that on demand of legal facilities the management got annoyed and terminated the services of workman on 16.09.2005 and earned wages of workman for the month of August and September 2005 were also not paid and the workman was not paid retrenchment compensation and notice pay. It is stated that the workman made a complaint on 20.09.2005 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the workman also sent a notice of demand -2- dt. 21.09.2005 to the management through union but the management refused to accept the same. Therefore, the workman filed claim before the Conciliation Officer but the management did not participate in the conciliation proceedings. It is stated that workman in unemployed since the date of termination of his services. It is prayed that an award be passed thereby reinstating the workman in service with full back wages and continuity of service. 2. The notice of statement of claim was issued to the management but the management failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte on 11.05.2006 and the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence of workman. 3. On 31.08.2006 and 30.11.2006 AR for workman sought adjournment for workman evidence as workman was not available and on that account steps for WE could not be taken. On 15.03.2007 the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence of workman but the workman failed to appear and was proceeded under [SECTION] of [ACT] and ex-parte evidence of workman was closed. 4. I have carefully perused record. 5. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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. Filing 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 this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. -3- 6. In [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce an evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in employment of the employer. 7. In [PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the workman apart from examining himself in support of his contention has not produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has worked with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under [SECTION] of the [ACT], in the absence of evidence on record the Labour Court and the High Court have committed an error in law and fact in directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman.
8. Hence, as per aforesaid decisions it is for the workman to prove that he was employed by the management as [ENTITY] since September, 1995 and his services were terminated by the management illegally on 16.09.2005. The workman has not appeared in the witness box to prove his contention that he has been employed with the management as [ENTITY] since September 1995 and the workman has also not examined any witness in support of his contention that he was employee of the management and his services were terminated by the management on 16.09.2005.
9. The workman has not produced any evidence in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his employment to show that he had worked for the management for the period as alleged. The workman has failed to prove that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties. As there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties hence there is no question of termination of services of workman illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management. Consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief. Copies of this award be sent to appropriate Govt. for publication as per law. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. ON 15.03.2007.
([ENTITY]) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. XVII KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI 15.03.2007 After Lunch Present: None for workman.
Management is ex-parte.
Nobody has appeared for workman despite repeated calls since morning. It is 2.25PM.
I proceed under [SECTION] of [ACT]. Today case is fixed for ex-parte evidence of workman but the workman neither examined himself nor any witness has been examined by the workman. In the circumstances WE is closed.
Award dictated and announced, separately. Copies of the award be sent to appropriate Government for publication as per law. File be consigned to Record Room.
POLC/15.03.2007