-1- IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY]: PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. XVII, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI . ID NO. 910/06 BETWEEN The Workmen 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Rishti Narain Chaudhary 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Puran Bahadur 3. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Bheem Bahadur 4. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Bhudh Bahadur 5. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Parmeshwer Shah 6. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Hori Lal 7. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Chander Bahadur 8. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. Sat Pal 9. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Kharak Singh 10.Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Md. Azad 11.Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Dhanbahadur 12.Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Dhand Lal 13.Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Jodha Singh and 14.Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Khanihya Lal C/o Bhartiya Karamchari General Mazdoor Union C-9, Lal Bagh, G. T. Karnal Road, Azadpur, Delhi- 110033. AND M/s Sumit Metal Engineering Works A-67/1, G. T. Karnal Road, Azadpur, Delhi- 110033. AWARD 1. The [ENTITY], through its Secretary (Labour) vide reference No. F.24(2307)/2002-Lab/21530-34 dt. 10.12.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication between the Management of M/s Sumit Metal Engineering Works and its workmen Sh. [ENTITY] and others in the following terms of reference:- "Whether services of Sh. [ENTITY] & others have been terminated illegally and, or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefit in -2- terms of existing laws/Government notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 2. Workmen have filed statement of claim stating therein that they have been employed with the management as per details given below: Sl. Name Father's Name Designation Service Salary No period [ENTITY] Sh. Rishti Kumar Press Man 15 years Rs. 2828/- 1 Chaudhary 2 [ENTITY] Sh. Puran Bahadur Press Man 14 years Rs. 2826/- 3 [ENTITY] Sh. Bheem Bahadur Helper 8 years Rs. 2046/- 4 [ENTITY] Sh. Budh Bahadur Machine Man 14 years Rs. 2828/- 5 [ENTITY] Sh. [ENTITY] Helper 10 years Rs. 2200/- 6 [ENTITY] Sh. Hori Lal Helper 5 years Rs. 1995/- 7 [ENTITY] Sh. Chandra Bahadur Helper 7 years Rs. 1995/- 8 [ENTITY] W/o Sh. Satpal Machine Man 17 years Rs. 2600/- 9 [ENTITY] Helper 9 years Rs. 1464/- 10 [ENTITY] 6 years Rs. 2200/- 11 [ENTITY] Sh. [ENTITY] Machine Man 14 years Rs. 2950/- 12 [ENTITY] Helper 5 years Rs. 1595/- 13 [ENTITY] Press Man 17 years Rs. 3215/- 14 [ENTITY] Helper 8 years Rs. 1990/- It is stated that the management was not providing the legal facilities i. e. appointment letter, earned leave, attendance card, identity card etc. and the workmen were demanding the same orally from the management on which management started remaining annoyed with the workmen and the management terminated services of workmen on 11.10.2001 without issuing any notice or charge sheet and earned wages of workman for the month of September 2001 were also not paid. The workmen made complaint to the Labour Authorities through union but despite efforts of Labour Inspector workmen were not reinstated and their dues were also not paid. Workmen -3- sent notice of demand to the management but the management did not send reply to the same. Thereafter workman presented their claim before the Conciliation Officer but due to non-cooperative attitude of management conciliation was not arrived. It is stated that workmen are unemployed since the date of termination of their services. It is prayed that an award be passed thereby reinstating the workmen 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 management was proceeded ex-parte by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 6.09.2005 and the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence of workmen. The workmen did not appear in the witness box despite number of opportunities given and the workmen have not examined any witness. On 03.04.2007 AR for workmen stated that workmen have not contacted him despite information given and it seems workmen are not interested in prosecuting their claim and AR for workmen closed WE on 03.04.2007. 4. I have heard authorised representative for workmen and carefully perused record. 5. In the statement of claim workmen have stated that they have employed with the management as per details furnished in the statement of claim. However, the workmen have not appeared in the witness box to prove that they have been employed with the management for the periods as alleged. -4- 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 -5- 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.
9. In the present case the workmen did not appear in the witness box and they have not examined any witness in support of their contention and they have not produced any evidence in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of their appointment or engagement to show that they had worked with the employer for the period as alleged.
10. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the workmen have failed to prove that they have worked for a period of 240 days or more with the Management. Accordingly, the workmen are 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 03.04.2007.
([ENTITY]) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. XVII KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI