IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ID NO. 125/08 Unique Case ID No. 02402C0639352008 BETWEEN THE WORKMAN Sh. Virender Kumar Shukla, S/o Sh. Hari Ram Shukla, R/o J/85, Azad Basti, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/s. Shaurya Exservicemen Security Services Pvt. Ltd. H.No. 303, Third Floor, Aggarwal Shopping Centre, CDBlock, Near Power House, Pitampura, Delhi. Through its Director. Date of Institution : 27.08.2008 Date on which award reserved : 05.02.2011 Date of passing of award : 05.02.2011 A W A R D 1.
The Present claim has been filed by the workman under [SECTION] of [ACT] (in short [ACT]), as applicable to Delhi.
2. The main averments of the statement of claim of the workman are to the effect that he had been working regularly with the management since 01.05.2006 at the post of 'Security Guard' and his last salary was Rs. 3156/ per month; that he had worked honestly and sincerely with the management and did not give any chance of any complaint to the management during tenure of his service; that the management did not provide him various facilities like appointment letter, annual leave etc., and when he demanded the same, the management became annoyed; that on 25.04.2008, he applied for leave and the management sanctioned his leaves w.e.f. 25.04.2008 to 29.04.2008 and when he returned back from his native place to resume his duties on 30.04.2008, he was not taken back on duty by the management; that ultimately, his services were terminated illegally by the management on 30.04.2008 without any genuine and justified reasons; that the management also did not pay his earned wages w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to 31.05.2008; that he had sent a legal demand notice dated 29.07.2008 but the management did not reply the same. Lastly, a prayer was made for his reinstatement with full back wages and 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. It has been mentioned in WS, interalia, that the present claim of the workman is not maintainable; that he has filed a false and baseless claim against the management; that he has suppressed true and material facts from this court; that his services were never terminated by the management but rather he himself abandoned his job by remaining absent from his duties at his own will and accord; that whatever was due to him till he actually worked with the management, the same was paid to him as per rules; that nothing was due to him from the side of the management. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss his 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 16.12.2008:
1. Whether the workman had been working regularly with the management since 01.05.2006 as a Security Guard drawing his last salary of Rs. 3156/ per month?
2. Whether the workman is guilty of suppression of certain material facts from this court by filing his statement of claim for the redressal of his alleged grievances?
3. Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
4. Relief.
6. From the side of the workman, he himself examined as WW1 and also filed his affidavit Ext. WW1/A on record in support of his case and then evidence of the workman was closed.
7. From the side of the management, MW1 Sh. [ENTITY] was examined who also filed his affidavit Ext. MW1/1 on record and then evidence of the management was also closed.
8. Oral final arguments were submitted in this case on behalf of the management only which were almost the repetitions of averments of pleadings of management side on record.
9. Such final arguments were not submitted on behalf of the workman side despite sufficient time was given to the workman side for this purpose.
10. I perused the judicial file minutely and my issue wise decision is as under:
11. 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.
12. In my further considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of both these issues was upon the workman.
13. 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 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.
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 workman on record, he admitted in his cross examination that he was asked by the Labour Office as well as by the management to join duties with the management but he did not join his duties because he was not given salary; that it was correct that reply of his legal notice from the counsel of management company was received by him; that he worked in SD Security Service before joining the present management. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the duties with the management voluntarily after 28.04.2008 but he has not added anything further nor has produced any cogent evidence on record in support of this denial. I have also gone through the documents relied upon by the workman in support of his contentions which are mainly w.e.f. Ext. WW1/1 to Ext. WW1/6. In my considered opinion, none of these documents establishes that the workman had really worked with the management regularly since 01.05.2006 till alleged date of his termination i.e. 30.04.2008 at the post of security guard drawing last wages @ 3156/. Further, none of these documents establishes that his services had really been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management. In my further considered opinion, his oral testimony is also not sufficient to establish any of these issues in his favour.
16. On the basis of above mentioned discussion, coupled with entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion, that the workman has miserably failed to prove 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.
17. In my considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of this issue was upon the management. MW1 has deposed mainly pertaining to this issue to the effect that the workman himself abandoned his job w.e.f. 29.04.2008 at his own will and accord rather than his services terminated illegally by the management, as alleged. In my considered opinion, there is no substantial rebuttal of this fact from the side of the workman by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary. Hence, the management side has been successful to prove this issue in its favour. Accordingly, this issue also decided in favour of management and against the workman mainly to the effect that the workman herein is guilty of suppression of certain material facts from this court. Accordingly, this issue also decided against the workman and in favour of the management. ISSUE NO. 4: RELIEF
18. In view of the findings of this court on issue nos. 1, 2 & 3 to the above effect, I am of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief in this matter. The award is passed to the above effect against the workman and in favour of the management.
19. 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 05.02.2011 Presiding Officer Labour Court No. IX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi