Rajender Dass vs Mangt. Of Poonam Tent House
2008 Latest Caselaw 1920 Del

                                                                               #2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      LPA 189/2006
%                                             Date : 31st October, 2008

RAJENDER DASS                               ..... Appellant
                              Through       Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate

                      versus

MANGT. OF POONAM TENT HOUSE ..... Respondent
                   Through  None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN


1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



                               JUDGMENT

MUKUL MUDGAL, J: (Oral)

1. This appeal challenges the order dated 25th October, 2005 in

W.P. (C) No. 20414/2005 of learned Single Judge. The writ petition

challenged the Award dated 8th July, 2005 by which the Labour

Court held that the Appellant/Workman had failed to establish the

relationship of employee and employer with the Respondent. By

the impugned judgment Learned Single Judge has held as under :-

".......only document exhibited on record was a dishonoured cheque, another is the copy of the demand notice, its postal receipt, registered envelope and D.D. card..."

2. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition

has held that the cheque was not even in the name of the

Petitioner and it was not disputed before us that the cheque was a

self cheque and not made out to the Appellant/Workman. The

main thrust of the Appellant's case is that the Appellant having

entered the witness box and the Respondent having not appeared,

the Appellant was entitled to the relief claimed for.

3. In our view, this submission of the Appellant has righty been

rejected by learned Single Judge by observing that the Petitioner

has to prove its case before the Respondent is called upon to

answer the claim set up by the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the

Appellant is unable to show as to why the aforesaid reasoned

order is untenable in law.

4. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and as such the

appeal is dismissed.

MUKUL MUDGAL,J

MANMOHAN, J

OCTOBER 31, 2008 rn