Mangal Prasad vs Government Of Nct And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 2962 Del

*           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

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

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'