IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ID No. 126/07 Unique Case I.D. No. 02402C0650822007 BETWEEN THE WORKMAN Smt. Chanderkala, A171, Sri Enclave Pansali, Delhi - 82. AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/s. Shirdi Sai Baba Vidya Mandir Avom Dharmarth Aoushdhalaya Nirman Samiti (Regd.), through President, CSC5, Pocket D10, Sector7, Rohini, New Delhi85. Date of Institution : 24.09.2007 Date on which award reserved : 11.08.2010 Date of passing of award : 17.08.2010 A W A R D 1.
The workman has directly filed her statement of claim under [SECTION] of [ACT] (in short [ACT]), as applicable to Delhi.
2. The main facts as mentioned in the statement of claim of the workman are to the effect that she had been working with the management since February, 1998 as a 'Messenger' drawing last wages @ Rs. 3200/ per month; that she was not provided certain legal facilities by the management which were due to her as per labour laws; that she had worked honestly and sincerely with the management and did not give any chance of any complaint to the management during tenure of her service; that her services had been terminated by the management illegally on 06.04.2007 by saying that her services had become surplus on account of closure of the laboratory of the management; that the management deposited certain amount in the account of the workman at its own; that no notice or memo was served upon her before terminating her services; that she had served a demand notice upon the management dated 23.07.2007 but despite that she was not taken back into service. Lastly, a prayer was made for her 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. It has been mentioned in the WS, interalia, that the management is a charitable organization engaged in religious and charitable activities; that provisions of various labour laws are not applicable to it; that the management was not an industry within the meaning of [SECTION] of [ACT] (in short I.D Act); that services of the claimant were never terminated illegally, as alleged, but rather she had gone on illegal strike w.e.f. 20.03.2007 in the company of other co workers; that she did not join her duties despite various letters written to her by the management asking her to join her dues; that she herself abandoned her job at her own will and accord rather than her services being terminated illegally, as alleged; that in those circumstances, there was no necessity of holding any domestic enquiry against her when she herself left the job of the management at her own will and accord; that a sum of Rs. 19889/ was credited in her bank account in UTI bank, Delhi towards all her previous benefits including her gratuity which was also encashed by her; that there was nothing due to her against the management, as alleged. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss her 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 03.01.2008:
1. Whether the management is not an 'industry' within the meaning of [SECTION] of [ACT]?
2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as alleged in para 4 of preliminary objections of WS?
3. Whether the claimant has been validly dismissed from the service?
4. Relief.
7. From the side of the workman, she herself examined as WW1 and also filed her affidavit on record in support of her contentions and then evidence of the workman was closed.
8. From the side of the management, MW1 Ms. [ENTITY] was examined who also filed her affidavit Ex. MW1/A on record and then evidence of the management was also closed.
9. Oral final arguments were heard in this case from the side of the management only which were almost the repetitions of averments of pleadings of the management side on record. Such arguments were not submitted on behalf of the workman side despite opportunity given.
10. I perused the judicial file minutely and my issue wise decision is as under:
11. I have taken up all these issues together because to my considered view, all these issues are interconnected with each other and can be decided by the same reasoning.
12. In my further considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of all these issues was upon the management. In coming to this 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] 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 nonexistence 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.
13. On this point, 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] postulates that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right and liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. 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.
14. Now turning to the evidence of MW1 on record pertaining to these issues, she deposed in her affidavit Ex. MW1/A on record mainly to the effect that the management was a charitable organization engaged in religious and charitable activities and hence it was not an 'industry' within the meaning of [SECTION] of [ACT]; that certificate of registration of the management to this effect was Ex. MW1/1 on record; that the claimant went on an illegal strike w.e.f. 20.03.2007 along with other employees and blocked the entry of other devotees to the temple managed by the management; that the management had written letters dated 14.04.2007, 29.04.2007 and 09.05.2007 respectively to the claimant asking her to join her duties but despite that neither she replied those notices nor joined the duty with the management and that such notices are collectively on record as Ex. MW1/5; that in this way, she voluntarily left her job of the management at her own will and accord ; that ultimately the management dismissed her service vide letter dated 10.07.2007 and all her legal dues were credited in her UTI bank account at Rohini, Delhi. This witness also examined herself orally as MW1 before this court on 06.08.2010 in support of her contentions as mentioned by her in her affidavit as Ex. MW1/A. She was not cross examined at all by and on behalf of the workman despite opportunity given. Hence, her testimony remains completely unrebutted and unchallenged from the side of the workman and more particularly on the above mentioned facts.
15. During the course of oral final arguments, Ld. Authorised Representative for the management also argued to the effect that the management not being an 'industry' within the meaning of [SECTION] of [ACT] and that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim of the claimant and more particularly in view of the contradictory statements made by the workman in her statement of claim regarding her alleged date of termination. In my considered opinion, there is no substantial rebuttal of all these facts from the side of the workman by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary.
16. Now turning to the evidence of workman herself on record pertaining to these issues and more particularly pertaining to issue no. 3, she admitted in her cross examination that it was correct that the date of her termination as mentioned in para 9 of her statement of claim was 29.04.2007; that she did not remember the exact date of termination of her services by the management; that she used to get her salary in time; that she used to get leave on normal basis; that all statutory funds were deducted and were given to her; that it was correct that the management had deposited Rs. 19889/ in her bank account and she had withdrawn the same; that on 20.03.2007, she was sitting on dharna with all staff members.
17. From the above mentioned own admissions of the workman herself coupled with other material on record and more particularly in view of the unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of MW1, as mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant has miserably failed to prove any of the issues in her favour and more particularly issue no. 3. On the other hand, the management side has been successful to prove on record, by cogent evidence, both oral as well as documentary, all these three issues in its favour. Accordingly, all these issues are decided against the claimant and in favour of the management. In other words, the management has been successful to prove on record that services of the claimant were validly terminated when she did not join duties of management despite repeated letters written to her by management in this regard. Hence, all these issues decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
ISSUE NO. 4 : RELIEF
18. In view of findings of this court on issue no. 1 to 3 to the above effect, I am of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled to claim any relief in this matter against the management.
19. The award is passed to the above effect against the workman and in favour of the management.
20. A copy of this Award be sent to the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi 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 17.08.2010 Presiding Officer Labour Court No. IX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi