ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) Date of Institution : 26.07.1997 Date on which award reserved : 04.02.2010 Date of passing of award : 20.02.2010 BETWEEN THE WORKMEN [ENTITY] & Ors. C/o Nav Jagrit Krantikari Mazdoor Union, Behind A107, Near Railway Line, B339, Shaheed Sukhdev Nagar, Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi - 52. AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/s. J.B. Industries, 26 Harsh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi - 34. 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(388)/97 Lab./1656872 dated:25.06.1997 with the following terms of reference.
"Whether the services of S/Sh. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [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?"
ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new)
2. A joint statement of claim has been filed in this case on behalf of about 11 workmen as mentioned in this statement of claim and their names are S/Sh. (1) [ENTITY] Sharma, (3) [ENTITY], (4) [ENTITY], (5) [ENTITY], (6) [ENTITY] (7) [ENTITY], (8) [ENTITY], (9) [ENTITY], (10) [ENTITY] and (11) [ENTITY].
3. The main submissions made in this joint statement of claim are to the effect that these workmen had been working with the management for the durations, for wages, at designations etc. as mentioned in detail in this statement of claim which are to the following effect: S.no. Name Designation Service Salary
1. [ENTITY] 5 years 2500/
2. [ENTITY] Do 4 years 2500/
3. [ENTITY] Do 2 years 2500/
4. [ENTITY] Pd. Do 7 years 2500/
5. [ENTITY] Do 7 years 2500/
6. [ENTITY] Do 4 years 2500/
7. [ENTITY] Do 5 years 2500/
8. [ENTITY] Technician 2 years 4500/
9. [ENTITY] 2 years 2500/
10. [ENTITY] Do 3 years 2500/
11. [ENTITY] Do 4 years 2500/
4. It is further submitted by workmen that they had been working regularly and sincerely with the management and never gave any chance of any complaint to the management during the tenures of their services; that the management was harassing the workmen in various ways in order to deprive them from all their legal dues and benefits as available to them ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) as per various labour laws; that when the workmen persisted in their demands for legal facilities and various dues due to them from the management, it became annoyed and illegally terminated their services w.e.f. 08.07.96 without any justified reasons. Lastly, a prayer was made for their reinstatements with full back wages and all other consequential benefits as per law.
5. 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 have not approached this court with clean hands; that the claimants had left the employment of the management on their own accord in July, 1996; that the claimants had settled their dues on 29.07.1996 with the management in the presence of the office bearers of their union; that the reference made in this matter is bad in law; that the claim of the claimants is liable to be dismissed. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss their statement of claim.
6. In the rejoinder filed to WS of management, averments made in the statement of claim were reiterated and those made in the WS of management were denied.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 05.07.2001:
1. Whether claimants left the employment of the management voluntarily after full and final settlement of their dues on 29.7.96 as pleaded in the preliminary ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) objection of the written statement?
2. Whether they are gainfully employed?
3. As per terms of reference.
8. From the side of the workmen, WW1 Sh. [ENTITY], WW2 Sh. [ENTITY], WW3 Sh. [ENTITY], WW4 Sh. [ENTITY], WW5 Sh. [ENTITY] and WW6 Sh. [ENTITY] respectively were examined in this case and they also filed their respective affidavits on record in support of their contentions. Thereafter, evidence of workmen side was closed.
9. From the side of the management, MW1 Sh. [ENTITY] was examined who also filed his affidavit Ex. MW1/A on record and thereafter evidence of the management was closed.
10. This matter was sent for mediation in mediation center on 27.01.2009 before Ld. Mediator Ms. [ENTITY] of KKD Courts, Delhi and as per the said settlement arrived at between the parties, the management had agreed to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac) to the workmen against all their claims in three installments. In compliance to the terms of that settlement, first installment of Rs. 35000/ (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) was paid to the workmen side by the management side on 13.02.09 but management side never appeared thereafter for making further payments as per terms and conditions of that settlement. Hence, this matter was not treated as fully and finally settled between the parties and was fixed for decision on merits.
11. I have already heard oral final arguments in this matter from the AR ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) for workmen because none appeared on behalf of the management to address such oral final arguments despite sufficient time given for this purpose. Such oral final arguments of AR for workmen were almost the repetitions of averments of pleadings of workmen side on record.
12. In the interest of justice, a further opportunity was given to both sides for filing of written synopsis of final arguments but the same have not been filed on record from any side.
13. I perused the entire judicial file minutely and my issuewise decision is as under:
14. In my considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of this issue was upon the management. 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 ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) the existence or nonexistence 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.
15. 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.
16. Now turning to the evidence of management on record pertaining to this issue, MW1 Sh. [ENTITY] had deposed to the effect that he was the Proprietor of the management; that he was the sole proprietor of this management namely M/s. J.B. Industries; that he had no concern with M/s. Naresh Hosiery being run at Multani Dhanda by his elder brother; that he did not know if the claimants were earlier working with M/s. Naresh Hosiery; that the workman entered into settlement and then left ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) the job of the management voluntarily on 29.7.1996. There are certain documents on record filed on behalf of the management which are Ex. MW1/1, MW1/2 (colly.) and MW1/3 (colly.) respectively through which the workmen namely S/Sh. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] respectively received their settled amounts from the management towards full and final settlement of all their claims.
17. In my considered view, there is no substantial rebuttal of the above mentioned oral as well as documentary evidence of the management from the side of the workmen, by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the management side has been successful to prove before this court that the claimants herein voluntarily settled their disputes with the management after receiving their full and final settled dues on 29.7.96. Hence, this issue is decided against the workmen and in favour of the management.
18. In my considered opinion, the primary burden of proof of this issue was also upon the management. In my further considered opinion, the management side has not produced any cogent evidence on record, either oral or documentary, to satisfy this court that the workmen herein were gainfully employed. Hence, this issue is decided against the management and in favour of the workmen.
ID NO. 594/97 (old), 516/08 (new) ISSUE NO. 3 :
19. In view of the findings of this court on issue no. 1 to the above effect, I am of the considered opinion that the services of the workmen herein had not been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, as alleged and the workmen herein are not entitled to claim any relief against the management.
20. 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 20.02.2010 Presiding Officer Labour Court No. IX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi