-1- IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY]: PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. XVII, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI . ID NO. 733/06 BETWEEN The Workman Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] C/o Audhogik Mazdoor Union 668, Kabul Nagar, G. T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032. AND M/s S. K. M. Jewellers 211/8, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006. AWARD 1. The National Capital Territory of Delhi, through its Secretary (Labour) vide reference No. F.24(70)/2003-Lab/5487-91 dt. 19.06.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication between the Management of M/s S. K. M. Jewellers and its Sh. [ENTITY] in the following terms of reference:- "Whether services of Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] have been terminated by the mgt. illegally and/or unjustifiably and 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 March 1989 as General Worker and his last drawn salary was Rs.2000/- per month although he was entitled to receive Rs. 3103.70 per month as minimum wages fixed by appropriate Government. It is stated that workman was working sincerely and diligently to the satisfaction of management and never gave any chance of complaint to -2- the management. It is stated that management was running two businesses i.e. in the name of M/s S. K. M. Jewellers and M/s Krishna Mehra Jewellers under the same roof and Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] were looking after the said businesses and the workman was being made to work for both the aforesaid businesses. It is stated that the management was not providing the legal facilities i.e. appointment letter, earned leave, casual leave, pay slip, minimum wages etc. and the workman was demanding the same orally from the management. It is stated that the management was also obtaining signatures of workman on blank vouchers. It is stated that the earned wages of workman for the month of June, July and August 2002 were also not paid. It is stated that on 19.09.2002 workman demanded wages for the month of June, July and August 2002 and payment of wages @ Rs. 3103.70 which is the minimum wages fixed by the appropriate Government and the workman also demanded other legal facilities on which the management obtained signatures of workman on blank papers and vouchers and terminated the services of the workman without issuing notice or charge sheet. It is stated that on 19.09.2002 the workman made a complaint to SHO , PS New Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi and the workman also sent a notice of demand to the management but the workman was not reinstated and his dues were also not paid. It is stated that on 11.10.2002 workman presented his claim before the Conciliation Officer but the management did not participate in the conciliation proceedings and the conciliation was not arrived and the case was sent to the court. It is stated that workman in unemployed -3- 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 but the management failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex- parte by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 07.02.2004 and the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence of workman. 4. In support of his case the workman examined himself as WW1 and Sh. [ENTITY] as WW2 and closed WE on 07.05.2005. 5. I have heard authorised representative for workman and carefully perused record. 6. The workman appeared in the witness box and adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A. Workman has relied on copy of demand notice dt. 19.09.2002 Ex. WW1/1, postal receipt Ex. WW1/2, UPC receipt Ex. WW1/3, AD card Ex. WW1/4, complaint to SHO, New Kotwali Daryaganj Ex. WW1/5 and copy of claim filed before the Conciliation Officer Ex. WW1/6. The notice Ex. WW1/1, complaint to police Ex. WW1/5 and copy of claim presented before the Conciliation Officer Ex. WW1/6 do not prove the date of appointment of workman, the post of the workman, the wages of the workman and that the workman has worked continuously for 240 days in a year with the management. The workman has also examined Sh. [ENTITY] as WW2 who adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW2/A. In affidavit Ex. WW2/A it is stated by WW2 that he is the President of Dabira Sarrafa Karamchari Union -4- (Regd.) and copy of his identity card is Ex. WW2/1 and he knows the workman since March 1989 as he was working for M/s S. K. M. Jewellers as General Worker. The testimony of WW2 does not prove the date of appointment of workman with the management, the wages of the workman and that the workman has worked continuously for 240 days in a year with the management. WW2 has stated in his affidavit Ex. WW2/A that he is the president of Dabira Sarrafa Karamchari Union (Regd.) but he has not stated in the affidavit Ex. WW2/A that workman was also member of the said union and he has not produced any record of the Union also to prove that workman was also member of the Dabira Sarrafa Karamchari Union (Regd.) and he was working with one of jewellers in the said area. The testimony of WW2 is of no help to the workman as the same does not prove the relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman. The documents field on record by workman Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/6 also do not prove the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 7. 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 -5- by the workman On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. 8. 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. 9. 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.
10. In the present case the workman apart from examining himself in support of his contention and Sh. [ENTITY]/WW2 has not produced any evidence in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement to show that he had worked with the employer for the period as alleged.
11. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the workman has failed to prove that he has worked for a period of 240 days or more with the Management. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed. 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 12.03.2007.
([ENTITY]) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. XVII KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI 12.03.2007 Present: None.
Award dictated and announced, separately. Copies of the award be sent to appropriate Government for publication as per law. File be consigned to Record Room.
POLC/12.03.2007