* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 12454/2009 % Date of Decision: 15th October, 2009 # SH. PAWAN AND OTHERS ..... PETITIONERS ! Through: Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate. VERSUS $ M/S SHALPRI RANE SILKS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: NEMO. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workmen who are four in number, in this writ petition, seek to challenge an industrial award dated 31.03.2009 in I.D. No. 752/2005 granting them no relief for alleged termination of their services by the management of the respondents w.e.f. 08.09.2005. 2. Arguments on admission heard. 3. The statement of claim before the Labour Court was filed by nine workmen allegedly working with the respondents. They all had alleged their termination w.e.f. 08.09.2005. Out of the nine persons, who have filed their claim before the Labour Court, only four of them have filed the present writ petition. 4. I have gone through the impugned award and have heard Mr. G.P. W.P.(C) No.12454/2009 Page 1 of 3 Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, could not point out any evidence that might have been ignored by the Court below in passing the impugned award. The management of the respondents in response to the claim of the petitioners had taken a stand that the petitioners No. 1 & 4 had started working on job work basis with respondent No. 1 w.e.f. April 2005 and that they had abandoned the service of the respondent No. 1 management of their own w.e.f. 08.09.2005. The management has denied the termination as alleged by the petitioners No. 1 & 2. 5. As far as petitioners No. 2 & 3 are concerned, the stand of the management before the Labour Court was that they had never worked with the respondents. Qua them relationship of employer and employee was denied. The onus of proof to prove the relationship of employer and employee is always upon the workman. It was for the workmen to have proved that they were working with the management of the respondents but no such evidence was produced by the petitioners No. 2 & 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners admitted in the course of hearing that there is no evidence on record to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the management of the respondents qua petitioners No. 2 & 3. 6. As far as the petitioners No. 1 & 4 are concerned, the stand of the management as discussed in the impugned award is that they had started working with the respondent No. 1 management on job work basis since April 2005 and had abandoned the service of their own w.e.f. 08.09.2005. These two workmen were working as Tailor/Thread Cutter/Pressman with the respondent management. It is quite possible that they had abandoned the service of the respondents because they W.P.(C) No.12454/2009 Page 2 of 3 might have found some better job as their employment with the respondents was on job work basis. What is significant to mention here is the fact that the petitioners No. 1 & 4 in their statement of claim had pleaded that they had been working with the management of the respondents for the last 8 to 13 years at time of alleged termination of their services. Petitioners No. 1 & 4 have admitted before the Labour Court that the respondent No. 1 company where they were allegedly working came into existence, for the first time, on 28.01.2005. In case, the respondent No. 1 company came into existence on 28.01.2005, the assertion of the workmen, namely petitioners No. 1 & 4, that they had been working with the respondents management for the last 8 to 13 years falls flat and cannot be believed. 7. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. OCTOBER 15, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'BSR' W.P.(C) No.12454/2009 Page 3 of 3