ID NO. 133/06 IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ID NO. 133/06 Date of Institution : 21.09.2006 Date on which award reserved : 08.03.2010 Date of passing of award : 15.03.2010 BETWEEN THE WORKMAN Sh. Lakhan Singh, S/o Sh. Daugi Ram, R/o H.No. 335/36, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/s. R.A. Industries, 33,S.S.I G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. AWARD 1.
The workman has directly filed his statement of claim before this court u/s 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short ID Act) as applicable to Delhi.
2. The main averments of the statement of claim of claimant are to the effect that he had been working with the management since 27.03.2005 at the post of 'Stiching Master' drawing last wages of Rs. 3300/ per month; that he had worked peacefully and honestly with the management; that he did not give any chance of any complaint to the management during the tenure of his service; that when he demanded certain legal facilities due to him from the side of the management, the management became annoyed and illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 31.07.06 without any justified reasons. Lastly, a prayer was made for his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits as per law.
3. The averments of the statement of claim have been strongly opposed in the written statement (in short W/S) filed on behalf of the management.
4. In the W/S, it is averred, interalia, that the present claim of the claimant is not maintainable because the claimant himself resigned from services of the management on 31.07.06 after receiving his full and final settled dues from the management; that there was nothing due to the workman from the management after 31.07.2006; that he himself left his job at his own will and accord; that there was no question of termination of his services illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, as alleged. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss his statement of claim.
5. In the rejoinder filed to WS, averments made in the statement of claim were reiterated and those made in the WS were denied.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 23.03.2007:
1. Whether the services of the claimant have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
2. Whether the claimant himself resigned from his service and had received his full and final payment.
3. Relief
7. From the side of the workman, he himself examined as WW1 and also filed his affidavit as Ext. WW1/A in support of his contentions and then evidence of the workman was closed.
8. From the side of the management, MW1 Sh. [ENTITY] was examined and he also filed his affidavit in support of the contentions of the management and then evidence of the management was also closed.
9. Oral final arguments were heard from both side. In my considered opinion, such oral final arguments from both sides were almost the repetitions of the averments of the pleadings of both sides on record.
10. I perused the entire judicial file minutely and my issuewise decision is as under: ISSUE NOs. 1 & 2
11. I have taken up both these issues together because to my considered view, both these issues are interconnected with each other and can be decided by the same reasoning.
12. The primary burden of proof of issue no. 1 was upon the workman and the primary burden of proof of issue no. 2 was upon the management.
13. In coming to the above conclusion, I also find support from an important judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in the case of [PRECEDENT]. In para 13 of this judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held mainly to the effect that principles regarding burden of proof are stipulated in [SECTION] of [ACT] (in short [ACT]) and that [SECTION] to 114 A of [ACT] were relevant on his aspect and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court further held in this judgment that General Principal, which is laid down in these Sections, particularly under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] was that he who asserts must prove i.e. burden of proof is the obligation to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or Court to establish the existence or non existence of a fact contended to by a party. It was further held in his judgment that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, for a negative is usually incapable of proof.
14. In coming to the conclusion, I further find support from an important judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court given in the case of [PRECEDENT]. The Hon'ble High Court held in para 11 of this judgment to the effect that [SECTION] of [ACT] (in short [ACT]) postulates that whoever desires in court as to any legal right and liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exists. It was further held that when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Reference was also made by the Hon'ble High Court to the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] pertaining to burden of proof in such like cases.
15. Now turning to the evidence on record of the workman himself pertaining to these issues, he himself admitted in his crossexamination that it was correct that he did not have any written document/proof regarding his employment with the management since 25.03.05; that it was correct that he was given an increment of Rs. 100/ after one year; that it was correct that there was no dispute between him and the management till 31.07.06; that the resignation letter Ext. WW1/M4 bears his signatures at Point 'A'; that he did not have any documentary proof to show that the management threatened him; that he did not approach the police after 31.07.2006;
16. Now turning to the evidence of the MW1 on record, it has been deposed by the MW1 in his affidavit Ext. MW1/A on record as well as in his oral deposition as MW1 mainly to the effect that vide Ext. WW1/M4, the workman himself resigned from his services at his own will and accord due to his personal family problems after receiving his full and final settled dues from the management on 31.07.2006 in sum of Rs. 6450/ vide duly executed receipt Ext. WW1/M3 bearing his signatures at point 'A. These documents have been put by the management on record. In my considered opinion, there is no substantial rebuttal of both these documents from the side of the workman by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary.
17. On the basis of above mentioned discussion coupled with other entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion, that the claimant herein himself resigned from his services on 31.07.06 after receiving his full and final settled dues from the management and hence the question does not arise regarding termination of his services by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably, as alleged. Accordingly, both these issues are decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
ISSUE NO. 3: RELIEF
18. In view of the findings of this court on issue nos. 1 and 2 to the above effect, I am further of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief in this matter against the management. No directions are necessary to be passed in this regard.
19. An award is passed to the above effect.
20. A copy of this Award be sent to the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Announced in the open court today (DR. [ENTITY]) i.e. on 15.03.2010 Presiding Officer Labour Court No. IX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi