Shri Pawan And Others vs M/S Shalpri Rane Silks Private ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4184 Del

*           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.

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

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'