IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ID NO. 210/08(old), 264/08(new) Unique Case I.D. No. 02402C0640682008 BETWEEN THE WORKMAN Sh. [ENTITY], S/o Late Sh. Khyali Ram, C/o Delhi General Workers Union, D195, Karampura, New Delhi110015. AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/s. Mahajan Packers, B48, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi110035. Date of Institution : 28.08.2008 Date on which award reserved : 20.04.2011 Date of passing of award : 20.04.2011 AWARD 1.
The workman has directly filed his statement of claim before this court u/[SECTION] of [ACT], (in short [ACT]) as applicable to Delhi .
2. The main facts as mentioned in the statement of claim of workman are to the effect that he had been working with the management since 10.01.1995 at the post of 'Clerk' drawing last wages @ Rs. 3500/ per month; that the management did not provide him certain legal facilities like leave book, Attendance Card, wages slips etc. and when he demanded the same from the management, it became annoyed and terminated his services illegally on 31.08.2007 without any justified reasons. Lastly, a prayer was made for his reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits as per law.
3. The averments of statement of claim have been strongly denied in the written statement (in short WS) filed on behalf of the management. It has been mentioned in the WS, interalia, that the workman has not come to this court with clean hands; that he was 62 years of age on 27.08.2007; that he had not worked for 240 days continuously with the management at any time; that nothing was due to him from the side of the management; that he had taken his full and final settled dues on 31.12.2002 and thereafter left his service at his own will. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss his statement of claim.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 13.04.2009: (1)Whether the workman had been working with the management regularly w.e.f. 10.01.1995 at the post of Clerk drawing last wages @ Rs. 3500/?
(2)Whether the workman had reached age of superannuation on the date of his alleged termination?
(3)Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
(4)Relief.
5. From the side of the workman, he examined himself as WW1 and also filed his affidavit Ext. WW1/A on record in support of his case and then, evidence of workman was closed.
6. No witness was produced on behalf of the management despite opportunity given.
7. Oral final arguments were submitted on behalf of management only which were almost the repetitions of averments of pleadings of management side on record.
8. Oral final arguments were not filed on behalf of workman despite opportunity given.
9. I perused the entire judicial file minutely and my issue wise decision is as under:
ISSUE NOs. 1 & 3
10. 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.
11. In my further considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of both these issues was upon the workman.
12. In coming to this conclusion, I 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 this 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 this 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 also 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 workman on record pertaining to these issues, he mentioned in his affidavit Ext. WW1/A in para 7 thereof that he had worked regularly with the management w.e.f. 10.01.1995 to 31.08.2007 and that he worked for more than 240 days of continuous service with the management in each year. However, he has not filed any authentic document on record in support of his working continuously with the management for the above mentioned period. He has also miserably failed to prove on record that he had worked continuously for 240 days with the management in each year during the above mentioned period. I have also carefully gone through the documents relied upon by the workman in support of his contentions which are on record as Ext. WW1/1 to Ext. WW1/13 respectively. In my considered opinion, none of these documents established the continuous and regular service of the workman with the management w.e.f. 10.01.1995 to 31.08.2007. In my further considered view, none of these documents establishes working of the workman with the management for 240 days in each callender year during the above mentioned period. The workman also admitted in his cross examination, interalia, that he was getting the salary of Rs. 1500/ per month; that he had not made any complaint to any authority regarding misusing his account by the management. In view of the above mentioned discussion coupled with entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the workman has miserably failed to prove on record any of these issues in his favour by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary, Hence, both these issues are decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
15. In my considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of this issue was upon the management. As there is no evidence at all on record of the management, pertaining to this issue, it is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4 : RELIEF
16. In view of findings of this court on issue nos. 1 & 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.
17. An award is passed to the above effect against the workman and in favour of the management.
18. 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]) on 20.04.2011 Presiding Officer Labour Court No. IX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi