* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 758/2009 and C.M. No. 1649/2009 (for condonation of delay of 830 days) % Date of Decision: 31st July, 2009 # MANGAL PRASAD ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Advocate VERSUS $ GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: None CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 18.08.2006 passed by Shri Harish Dudani, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVII, Delhi, by which no relief has been granted to him on the ground that petitioner had failed to prove the employer-employee relationship. 2. Heard. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner in his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court has alleged that he was appointed as Pressman for pressing of clothes by the respondent management in January 1999 at a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month. He has further alleged that his services were illegally terminated by the respondent w.e.f. 08.02.2000. Aggrieved by his termination, he has raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate W.P.(C) No.758/2009 Page 1 of 3 Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. 4. The petitioner in his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court had stated that initially the respondent was getting work from him at C-1/6, Model Town, Delhi, where he worked for 3 months and thereafter he was shifted to E-8/C, Gali No. 11, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, where he worked till his termination on 08.02.2000. 5. The respondent management in its written statement to the claim of the petitioner denied the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The respondents categorically stated in its written statement that no business in the name of M/s V. Rishi Associates was ever carried out either from C-1/6, Model Town, Delhi, or from E-8/C, Gali No. 11, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, or from A-14, Ist Floor, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Ring Road, Delhi. The respondent has also stated in its written statement that no such firm by the name of M/s V. Rishi Associates is registered in Delhi. According to the respondent, the firm M/s V. Rishi Associates was functioning in Kala-amba, Distt. Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and its Garments Division has been wound up in the year 2001. The respondent specifically denied that it had ever appointed the petitioner or had terminated his services as alleged by him. 6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Labour Court on 29.04.2004: 1) Whether there existed relationship of employee and employer between the parties? OPW. 2) As in terms of reference. 7. The Labour Court after considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer W.P.(C) No.758/2009 Page 2 of 3 V. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (93) FLR 179 (SC), the onus was upon the petitioner to have proved that he was appointed by the respondent management as Pressman for pressing of clothes as alleged by him in his statement of claim. Despite a specific objection taken by the respondent in its written statement that it never did business either from C-1/6, Model Town, Delhi, or from premises No. E-8/C, Gali No. 11, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, or from A-14, Ist Floor, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Ring Road, Delhi, the petitioner did not produce any evidence much less satisfactory evidence to show that the respondent ever did business from either of the three places and for that reason the plea of the petitioner that he was appointed by the respondent management cannot be believed at all. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Application for condonation of delay being C.M. No. 1649/2009 is also dismissed. JULY 31, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'bsr' W.P.(C) No.758/2009 Page 3 of 3