-1- IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY]: PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. XVII, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI . ID NO. 232/06 BETWEEN The workman Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] C/o Delhi Karamchari Sangh 5239, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi- 110006. AND The Management of M/s Sehgal Apparels C-175, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF THE CASE : 15.11.2003 DATE OF RESERVING THE AWARD : 04.12.2007 DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF AWARD : 08.12.2007 AWARD 1. The National Capital Territory of Delhi through its Secretary (Labour) vide reference no. F.24(2183)/2003/Lab.32-36 dt. 08.10.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication between the management of M/s Sehgal Apparels and its workman Sh. [ENTITY] in the following terms of reference:- "Whether the services of Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the mgt., if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 2. Workman has filed statement of claim stating therein that he has been employed with the management since 15.07.1996 as Pressman and his -2- last drawn salary was Rs.2000/- per month. Workman was working sincerely and diligently to the satisfaction of management and never gave any chance of complaint to the management. The management was not providing the legal facilities i.e. appointment letter, earned leave, causal leave, attendance register, pay slip, leave card, ESI, PF, bonus, minimum wages, overtime wages etc. and the workman was orally demanding the same from the management on which management got annoyed and terminated the services of workman on 10.02.2003 without issuing any notice or charge sheet and earned wages of workman for the month of February 2003 were also not paid. Workman made complaint to the Labour Authorities through union on 14.02.2003 but despite efforts of Labour Inspector workman was not reinstated. Workman sent notice of demand to the management on 04.03.2003 through union but the management did not send any reply to the same. The workman is 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. 3. The notice of statement of claim was issued to the management and the management has filed WS. In the WS management has stated that management is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of readymade garments and the business of management entirely depends on the orders placed by the foreign buyers and the same vary from time to time and the business of management is also dependent upon the policies framed by the government of exporting as well as importing countries. It is denied that -3- claimant has been in the employment of management since 15.07.1996 as Pressman. It is stated that claimant was never in the employment of management and there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It is stated that as there was no privity of contract between the parties hence there was no question of providing the legal facilities as alleged. It is denied that services of workman were terminated by management as alleged. It is stated that workman is not entitled to any relief. 4. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed on 15.05.2006: 1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties? OPW. 2. As per terms of reference. 5. After framing of issues the case was fixed for WE on 31.07.2006 on which date workman sought adjournment. Thereafter case was again fixed for WE on 10.10.2006 and 23.01.2007 on which dates AR for workman appeared and sought adjournment for WE. The case was fixed for WE on 03.05.2007 but the workman did not appear and the case was proceeded under [SECTION] of [ACT] and WE was closed. The workman has neither examined himself nor any witness has been examined. The management also did not examine any witness and ME was closed on 04.12.2007. 6. I have heard authorized representative for management and carefully perused record. My findings on specific issues are as under: -4- ISSUE NO. 1 7. In the statement of claim workman has stated that he has been employed with the management since 15.07.1996 and his services were terminated illegally by management on 10.02.2003. In the WS management has denied that there existed any relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 8. The contention of AR for management is that it is for the workman to prove that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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.
12. Hence, as per aforesaid decisions it is for the workman to prove that he was employed by the management as Pressman since 15.07.1996 and his services were terminated by the management illegally on 10.02.2003. The workman has not appeared in the witness box to prove his contention that he has been employed with the management as Pressman since 15.07.1996 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 10.02.2003.
13. 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 with the management for the period as alleged. The workman has failed to prove that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of management and against the workman.
14. In findings on issue no. 1 above it has been held the workman has failed to prove that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties. As the workman was not an employee of the management, hence there is no question of termination of services of the workman by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably. Consequently, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference stands answered accordingly. Copies of 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 08.12.2007.
([ENTITY]) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. XVII KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI