IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ID NO. 54/06 (old), 476/08 (new) Unique Case I.D. No. 02402C0120312006 Date of Institution : 22.02.2006 Date on which award reserved : 18.12.2010 Date of passing of award : 18.12.2010 BETWEEN THE WORKMEN Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] and 22 Others as per Annexure A as represented by Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Chamber No. Y67, Civil Side, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 54. AND THE MANAGEMENT OF 1.
M/s. B.C.C. Overseas, D61, Okhkla Phase1, New Delhi 20.
2. M/s. B.C.C. Overseas, D64, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi 20.
AWARD
1. The Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication to this Labour Court vide notification No. F. 24(1632)/ 05/Lab./67781 dated 20.02.2006 with the following terms of reference.
"Whether the services of Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] and 22 others as shown in annexure A, have been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so,to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing Govt. Laws/notification and what other relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. A joint statement of claim has been filed in this case on behalf of 23 workmen as per the list attached with the terms of reference. The main submissions of the workmen in this joint statement of claim are to the effect that they had been working sincerely and regularly with the management w.e.f. the dates, at the posts and at the wages as mentioned in detail in a separate page attached with this joint statement of claim ; that they did not give any chance of any complaint of the management during the tenures of their services; that when they demanded certain legal facilities due to them like appointment letters, attendance cards, leave books, minimum wages etc., the management became annoyed and illegally terminated their services w.e.f. 22.12.2000 without any justified reasons; that they had sent a legal demand notice dated 01.03.2005 to the management but the management did not reply the same nor had take them back into their services. Lastly, a prayer was made for their reinstatements with full back wages and all other consequential benefits as per law.
3. There is only one management in this matter namely M/s. BCC Overseas but two addresses of this management have been mentioned by the workmen in their joint statement of claim namely D61 and D64 respectively at Okhla Phase 1, New Delhi - 20.
4. 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. In the W/S, it is averred, interalia, that the reference made in this case by the authority concerned was without the application of mind; that there was no employer and employee relationship between the parties herein and hence the question does not arise about termination of services of the claimants by the management; that management was never situated at D64, Okhla as mentioned in the statement of claim ; that nothing was due to any of the claimants from the management; that they have filed this false and baseless claim against the management. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss their 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 18.08.2006:
1. Whether services of the workmen were terminated illegally and unjustifiably as alleged in statement of claim? OPW
2. Whether the claim of the claimants is not maintainable in the present form? OPM
3. Relief.
7. From the side of the workmen, WW1 Sh. [ENTITY] and WW2 Sh. [ENTITY] respectively have only deposed in this matter out of all the contesting workmen and they also filed their respective affidavits Ex. WW1/A and WW2/A respectively on record in support of their contentions. The remaining workmen did not come to depose in support of their contentions despite several opportunities given for evidence of workmen side from time to time since 18.10.2006 till 21.10.2010 and hence the remaining evidence of workmen side was closed as per order of this court dated 21.10.2010.
8. No witness was produced on behalf of the management despite opportunity given and hence evidence of management side was also closed as per order of this court dated 16.12.2010.
9. Oral final arguments in this matter were heard today on 18.12.2010 form Ld. Authorised Representative of workmen (in short ARW) Sh. [ENTITY] on behalf of the contesting workmen and from Ld. Authorised Representative of management (in short ARM) Sh. [ENTITY] on behalf of the management.
10. The main submissions of Ld. ARW were to the effect that all the claimants herein were working with the management as 'Tailors' for various periods and for various wages as mentioned in detail in their joint statement of claim; that they had worked honestly and sincerely with the management during the tenure of their services; that the management did not provide them certain basis legal facilities as per various provisions of labour laws and when the claimants asked repeatedly for these facilities, the management became annoyed and illegally terminated their services on 22.12.2000 without any justified reasons; that each claimant was also not paid 20 days back wages at the time of termination of their services; that these claimants were terminated from their services without any valid and justified reasons.
11. On the other hand, the main submissions of Ld. ARM were to the effect that none of these claimants was ever employed by the management at any point of time; that there was no employer and employees relationship between the parties herein at any point of time; that the question does not arise for termination of their services illegally by the management when there was no relationship at all of the employer and employees between the parties herein; that these claimants have filed a false and baseless claim against the management in this matter without any justified reasons and in order to extract some money from the management; that nothing was due to any of them from the management. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss their statement of claim.
12. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of above mentioned rival submissions and my issuewise decision is as under: ISSUE NO. 1:
13. In my considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of this issue was upon the workmen. In coming to this conclusion, I also find support from an important judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in the case of UCO Bank vs. Presiding Officer & Another 1999 V AD (Delhi)
514. 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 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. 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.
15. Now turning to the evidence of claimants on record, only two workmen namely WW1 and WW2 have deposed in this matter in support of their contentions and the remaining workmen have not deposed despite opportunities given repeatedly for evidence of workmen side from time to time. In other words, the remaining workmen are not at all found entitled to claim any relief against the management in this matter.
16. As regards WW1 Sh. [ENTITY], he admitted in his cross examination, interalia, to the effect that it was correct that he had not filed any demand notice dated 01.03.2005 before this court. This witness denied suggestions mainly to the effect that he was never employed by the management; that there was no unit of the management working at D 64, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi 20; that he had filed a false and fabricated documents in support of his claim; that no Labour Inspector ever visited the premises of the management; that M/s. M.A. Fashion was situated at premises no. D64, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, Delhi. All the above mentioned main suggestions put to this witness during his crossexamination by Ld. ARM were denied by him but to y considered opinion, he has not added anything further nor produced any cogent evidence on record, either oral or documentary in support of such denials.
17. WW2 Sh. [ENTITY] has also deposed almost on the same lines as that of deposition of WW1. Both these witnesses have heavily relied upon documents namely Ex. WW1/1 and WW1/2. I have carefully gone through these documents.
18. Ex. WW1/1 is a sort of complaint written by and on behalf of these workmen to Station House Officer, P.S. Badarpur, Delhi. Similarly, Ex. WW1/2 pertains to certain complaints made by these workmen to some other authorities. In my considered opinion, none of these documents establishes employer and employees relationship between the management and these two workmen namely WW1 Sh. [ENTITY] and WW2 Sh. [ENTITY] respectively. In other words, these two workmen have miserably failed to establish on record any employer and employees relationship between them and the management in this matter.
19. On the basis of above mentioned discussion coupled with entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the workmen herein have miserably failed to establish any employer and employees relationship between the parties herein. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the claimants and in favour of the management. ISSUE NO. 2:
20. In my further considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of this issue was upon the management. As already mentioned, there is no evidence on behalf of the management also on this issue and hence, it is decided against the management and in favour of the claimants. ISSUE NO. 3 : RELIEF:
21. In view of the findings of this court on issue nos. 1 to the above effect, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants herein are not entitled to claim any relief against the management. No directions are necessary to be passed in this regard. An award is passed to the above effect and reference answered accordingly.
22. 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 18.12.2010 Presiding Officer Labour Court No. IX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi