IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ID NO. 303/03 Unique Case ID No. 02402C0104382003 BETWEEN THE WORKMEN Sh. [ENTITY] & Other, C/o LPG Employees Association, 1 Saakshra Apartment, A3 Block, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/s. Dee Pee Enterprises, L5, Green Park Extn., New Delhi - 16. Date of Institution : 28.08.2003 Date on which award reserved : 28.05.2010 Date of passing of award : 28.05.2010 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(1525)/ 2003Lab./1266973 dated: 19.08.2003 with the following terms of reference.
"Whether the services of Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], S/o Sh. [ENTITY] have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so,to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The main submissions of these workmen in their joint statement of claim are to the effect that they had been working with the management regularly and sincerely at various posts, for various periods and drawing various wages etc. as mentioned in detail in para 1 of their joint statement of claim; that they had worked honestly and sincerely with the management and did not give any chance of any complaint to the management during the tenures of their services; that when they demanded certain legal facilities due to them from the management like, ESI, PF etc., the management became annoyed and terminated their services illegally w.e.f. 28.08.2000 without any justified reasons. Lastly, a prayer was made for their reinstatements with full back wages and all other consequential benefits as per law.
3. The averments of statement of claim were 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 claimants herein have not come before this court with clean hands; that they had not been working honestly and sincerely with the management as claimed; that they did not behave properly and indulged in various anti management activities during the tenures of their services; that whatever was due to them till they worked with the management, the same was paid to them as per rules; that they had left the services of the management at their own rather than termination of their services illegally by the management as alleged; that nothing was due to these workmen from the management. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss their statement of claim.
4. In the rejoinder filed to WS, averments made in the statement of claim were reiterated and those made in the WS were denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 01.12.2005:
1. Whether both the claimants are gainfully employed?
2. As per terms of reference.
3. Relief.
6. The workman namely Sh. [ENTITY] compromised this matter with the management before this court on 24.01.2008 after receiving Rs. 12000/ in cash from the management towards full and final settlement of all his previous claims. He has also stated to have joined the services of the management w.e.f. 21.01.2008. In view of this settlement of workman [ENTITY] with the management, his claim stands satisfied and now this case to be decided on merits between another claimant namely Sh. [ENTITY] and the management herein. Hence, this clarification at this stage.
7. WW2 Sh. [ENTITY] was examined in chief on 07.04.2008 and his crossexamination was deferred. Vide order of this court dated 03.05.2010, WW2 Sh. [ENTITY] was directed to appear before this court for his crossexamination by and on behalf of the management on 22.05.2010 and it was last and final opportunity for this purpose. However, this witness was not present before this court on 22.05.2010 and no justified reasons were given for his nonappearance before this court on 22.05.2010. Hence, the evidence of this witness was closed as per order of this court dated 22.05.2010. Accordingly, partly recorded evidence of this witness dated 07.04.2008 cannot be taken into consideration because he did not produce himself for his cross examination by and on behalf of the management. Hence, this clarification at this stage to the above effect.
8. The oral final arguments were heard today on 28.05.2010 in this matter from the contesting workman Sh. [ENTITY] as well as from Ld. AR for the management Sh. [ENTITY] which were almost the repetitions of averments of pleadings of this workman and the management on record.
9. I perused the entire judicial file minutely and my issuewise decision qua the only contesting workman Sh. [ENTITY] and the management is as under:
10. I have taken up this issue first because to my considered opinion, the main dispute in this matter revolves around this issue. In my further considered opinion, the burden of proof of this issue was upon the contesting workman Sh. [ENTITY].
11. 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] 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 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.
12. On this point, I further find support from 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 mainly to the effect that [SECTION] of [ACT] postulates that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or 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] respectively of the [ACT] pertaining to burden of proof in such like cases.
13. As already mentioned, there is no evidence at all of this workman on record worth consideration in support of this issue, as mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that he has miserably failed to satisfy this court by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary, to the effect that his services had really been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably. Hence, he has miserably failed to prove this issue in his favour. Accordingly, this issue is decided against this claimant and in favour of the management.
14. The primary burden of proof of this issue was upon the management. There is also no evidence on record on behalf of the management in support of this issue and hence it is decided against the management and in favour of the contesting workman Sh. [ENTITY]. ISSUE NO. 3 : RELIEF:
15. In view of the findings of this court on issue no. 2 to the above effect, I am of the considered opinion that the services of the workman Sh. [ENTITY] had not been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, as alleged, and hence he was not entitled to claim any relief against the management in this matter.
16. An award is passed to the above effect and reference is answered accordingly. 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 28.05.2010 Presiding Officer Labour Court No. IX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi