Subhash Chander vs M/S. Aakarshan Jewellery Palace ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2530 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) No. 9923/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 08 July, 2009


# Subhash Chander
                                                                  ..... Petitioner
!           Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.

                                   Versus

$ M/s. Aakarshan Jewellery Palace & Others
                                                             .....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)
+CM No. 8181/2009 (for exemption) in WP(C) No.9923/2009
*

Exemption as prayed for is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) No. 9923/2009

The workman (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition seeking

to challenge the award dated 21.09.2007 passed by Ms. Mamta Tayal,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court I, Delhi rejecting his claim for

reinstatement and back wages.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner alleges termination from the services of the three

managements who are respondents no. 1 to 3 herein w.e.f. 09.05.2000.

He raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination

which was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court

for adjudication. The petitioner filed his statement of claim before the

Labour Court in which he stated that he was employed as the Accounts

Clerk by respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 01.07.1996 at a salary of Rs. 2100/- per

month. His further case in the statement of claim was that though he

was appointed as Accounts Clerk only by respondent no. 1 management

but he was working on instructions of respondent no. 1 with respondent

no. 2 and 3 management also. The petitioner has also stated in his

statement of claim that he was paid Rs. 700/- per month by all the three

managements separately. The written statement before the Labour

Court was filed only by respondent no. 1 and not by the other two

respondents. The defence set up by the respondent no. 1 in his written

statement was that the petitioner was employed as a part-time

accountant for assisting the respondent no. 1 management and that he

was coming to assist the respondent no. 1 management in connection

with writing of account books only once or twice every week and that too

for maximum one to three hours. No appointment letter was given by

any of the respondent's management to the petitioner. The Court below

has given a well-reasoned award for arriving at a conclusion that the

petitioner has failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated

by the respondents and for that reason declined his claim for

reinstatement and back wages. The witness of respondent no. 1

management in his evidence before the Court below has testified that the

account books used to be written by he himself and that the petitioner

has been coming only to assist him in some matters relating to accounts.

This testimony of the management witness has remained totally un-

rebutted on record.

4. Upon going through the impugned award and other relevant

material, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is

hereby dismissed in limine.

July 08, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL
ma                                                 [JUDGE]