Shri Devender Kumar vs M/S Bharti Cellular Limited
2009 Latest Caselaw 3943 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 11923/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 24th September, 2009

# SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR
                                                        ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through:   Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate

                                 VERSUS

$M/S BHARTI CELLULAR LTD.
                                                          .....RESPONDENT

^                 Through:   Nemo.

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)

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial

award dated 27.05.2008 in ID No. 215/2006 granting him no relief for

alleged termination of his service by the respondent. The court below has

held in the impugned award that there was no relationship of employer

and employee between the parties.

2     Heard on admission.

3     I have gone through the impugned award and on going through the

same, I find that the court below has arrived at a conclusion that there

was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties on

the basis of cogent evidence discussed in the award. The petitioner in

fact has admitted in his cross-examination that he was paid salary by

cheque by M/s A.J. Distrubutor, Kirti Nagar. The petitioner had got only

training for two days with the respondent and thereafter, he initially

worked with M/s G.N.S. System, Janak Puri and thereafter with M/s Verma

Enterprises, Tilak Nagar and lastly with M/s A.J. Distributor, Kirti Nagar.

Merely because the petitioner got training for two days with the

respondent does not make him an employee of the respondent. The

reliance placed by the petitioner on documents Ex. WW-1/1 and

Ex. WW-1/2 is of no legal consequence because by these documents

what the respondent had notified was incentives to the Foot on Street

(FOS) Collector. The announcement of incentives for the Foot on Street

Collector also does not make the petitioner employee of the respondent.

4 In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any perversity

or illegality 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.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009                             S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'