Pradeep Kumar vs M/S. International Travel House ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2476 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      W.P.(C) No. 9191/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 03 July, 2009


# Pradeep Kumar                              ..... Petitioner
!         Through: Mr. M.P. Sinha, Advocate.

                                 Versus

$ M/s International Travel House Ltd. & Anr.
                                                         .....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 workman (the petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition

seeking to challenge the award dated 05.12.2005 passed by the Labour

Court, Delhi then presided by Mr. D.K. Malhotra holding that the

petitioner is not entitled to any benefit on account of his alleged illegal

termination from service by the respondents. In the impugned award, the

court below has recorded a finding of fact that there was no relationship

of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents.

The said finding of fact is based upon cogent evidence discussed in the

award. The petitioner has filed a statement of claim under Section 10

(4)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly before the Labour

Court stating that he was employed as a driver by management No. 1 i.e.

M/s International Travel House Ltd. with whom he worked w.e.f.

14.12.1996 till he was illegally terminated on 30.09.2003. The statement

of claim filed before the Labour Court is at pages 18-23 of the paper

book. The statement f claim does not disclose any cause of action against

management No. 2 i.e. M/s Personal Aid. The court below did not accept

the plea of the petitioner that he was appointed as a driver by

management no. 1 because of the admission of the petitioner himself

before the Conciliation Officer in settlement document Ex.MW-1/A where

he admitted that he was an employee of M/s Personal Aid. Though the

petitioner admitted before the Conciliation Officer that he was not an

employee of management No. 1 i.e. M/s International Travel House Ltd

but he chose to file statement of claim only against management No. 1

suppressing the document of settlement Ex.MW-1/A for reasons best

known to him. The fact that the petitioner was not an employee of

management No. 1 is borne out not only from his admission contained in

settlement document Ex.MW-1/A but also by other documentary evidence

discussed in para 6 of the impugned award.

In view of the above, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not like to interfere in

finding of fact arrived at by the court below that there was no

relationship of employer and employee between the parties. I, therefore,

do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby

dismissed in limine.

July 03, 2009                                  S.N.AGGARWAL
a                                                 [JUDGE]