Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital vs Sushil Kumar & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 2897 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                               Judgment delivered on: 2nd June 2010.


+                                    W.P.(C) 8594/2004


        GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through:  Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika
                               Chaudhary, Ms. Simran & Mr. Nitesh
                               Kr. Singh, Advocates.


                                             Versus

        SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.                                     ............ Respondents
                      Through:                  Mr. Anil Mittal & Mr. Ataul Haque,
                                                Advocates.


                                              AND

 +                                   W.P.(C) 8616/2004

        GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL                     ..... Petitioner
                     Through:  Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika
                               Chaudhary, Ms. Simran & Mr. Nitesh
                               Kr. Singh, Advocates.

                                             Versus
        SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.                                     ........... Respondents
                      Through:                  Mr. Anil Mittal & Mr. Ataul Haque,
                                                Advocates.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.      Whether reporters of Local papers 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             No
        in the Digest?




W.P.(C) Nos.8594/2004 & 8616/2004`                                       Page 1 of 14
 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. W.P.(C) No.8594/2004 has been preferred by the petitioner, a hospital run

by the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, impugning the award dated 4th February,

2004 in I.D. No.143 of 1996 of the Industrial Tribunal on the following reference:-

"Whether the services of the workmen as mentioned in Annexure „A‟ have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifibably (sic unjustifiably) by the management and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

Names of 35 workmen were mentioned in Annexure „A‟ to the

reference. The Industrial Tribunal in the award records that out of the 35

workmen (subject matter of reference) 10 were security guards and the

others were working as sweepers in the petitioner hospital. The award

further records that the security guards had also raised a dispute for

regularization of their employment in the petitioner hospital and which was

the subject matter of I.D. No.142 of 1996, pending before the same

Industrial Tribunal and also answered vide a separate award dated 4th

February, 2004. The Industrial Tribunal answered I.D. No.142 of 1996 for

regularization of security guards against the security guards, holding that

there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner

hospital and the said security guards and since there was no such

relationship, the security guards were not entitled to the relief of

regularization. The Tribunal thus in the award in I.D. No.143 of 1996,

under challenge in W.P.(C) No.8594/2004 held that there being no

relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner hospital and

the security guards, there was no question of any illegality of their

termination. The award qua 10 security guards is thus against the security

guards and in favour of the petitioner hospital. The award further records

that the other workmen (subject matter of reference) namely the sweepers

had also similarly raised a dispute for regularization of their employment in

the petitioner hospital and which was the subject matter of I.D. No. 93 of

1996 pending before the same Tribunal and also decided vide separate

award dated 4th February, 2004. The award in I.D. No.93 of 1996 is against

the petitioner hospital and in favour of the sweepers and holds the sweepers

entitled to regularization of their services with the petitioner hospital.

Consequently, the award in I.D. No.143 of 1996 under challenge in

W.P.(C) No.8594/2004, qua sweepers is also against the petitioner hospital

and in favour of the sweepers and holds the termination by the petitioner

hospital of the services of the sweepers to be bad and directs the petitioner

hospital to reinstate the sweepers with full back wages and continuity of

service.

2. I may add that the award impugned in W.P.(C) No. 8594/2004 is in

favour of only 22 out of the 26 sweepers who were subject matter of

reference. It appears that the remaining sweepers subject matter of

reference did not come forward to prove their claim and were held not

entitled to any relief. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner hospital in

the present writ petition has impleaded even those sweepers as respondents

who were not granted relief under the impugned award and who have also

not challenged the award.

3. W.P.(C) No.8616/2004 has been preferred by the petitioner hospital

impugning the award in I.D. No.93 of 1996 (supra) of regularization of the

sweepers. The reference in the said industrial dispute was qua 26 sweepers.

4. Application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act was filed in W.P.(C)

No.8616/2004 and orders made thereon. It appears that even those sweepers

who were not granted the relief of reinstatement in I.D. No.143 of 1996 are

also receiving payments under Section 17B of the I.D. Act.

5. The writ petitions were taken up for hearing out of their turn on the

contention of the counsel for the petitioner hospital that the petitioner

hospital, already strapped for funds was facing a heavy financial outflow on

account of Section 17B payments. It was also the contention of the counsel

for the petitioner hospital that there is an apparent inconsistency. It is urged

that the respondent sweepers as well as the security guards aforesaid, before

the Industrial Tribunal had made identical claims, led identical evidence

and made identical arguments; however, the Industrial Tribunal vide the

three separate awards aforesaid made on the same day, has held the security

guards to be employees of the contractor and not of the petitioner hospital

but held the respondent sweepers to be employees of the petitioner hospital

and not of the contractor as contended by the petitioner hospital; that on the

same evidence inconsistent findings have been returned. It is further

informed that the writ petition filed by the security guards, being W.P.(C)

Nos.9438-42/2004, challenging the award against them has also been

dismissed by this Court on 20th December, 2006. It was urged that there is

thus apparent illegality in the awards in favour of respondent sweepers

impugned in the present writ petitions.

6. The petitioner hospital has placed on record the pleadings, evidence

of the security guards as well as the award in I.D. No. 142 of 1996.

7. The Industrial Tribunal in the award in I.D. No. 93 of 1996 qua

regularization of the respondent sweepers has found:-

(i) That the case of the sweepers was that they were employed by

the Medical Superintendent of the petitioner hospital on temporary basis

but after sometime, were handed over to a contractor and came under the

Contract Labour System depriving them of the minimum wages and all

other allowances.

(ii) That the sweepers after being so handed over to the contractor

made a complaint in this regard and also raised a dispute for their

regularization claiming that the work being taken from them was of a

perennial nature.

(iii) The petitioner hospital in its reply denied the existence of

relationship of employer and employee between itself and the sweepers;

denied that the sweepers were ever employed by the Medical

Superintendent; claimed that M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons was the employer

of the said sweepers; that the said M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons was the

contractor of the petitioner hospital engaged to keep some part of the

hospital neat and clean.

(iv) That the petitioner hospital neither gave/specified the date on

which the said agreement was entered into with M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons

nor gave any other particulars thereof nor proved the said contract.

(v) That the petitioner hospital had also admitted that M/s Laxmi

Chand & Sons have been engaged for cleaning only a part of the hospital

and for cleaning the remaining part of the hospital, regular employees were

being employed by the petitioner hospital.

(vi) That the petitioner hospital had not denied specifically that it

is not registered with the appropriate Government under the Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 for engaging a contractor.

(vii) That the witness of the petitioner hospital also had not

produced any record of M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons contractor or any bills

raised by the said contractor and which should have been in the possession

of the petitioner hospital.

(viii) That though the witness of the petitioner hospital had stated

that there were no vacant posts of sweepers and the respondent sweepers

had not fulfilled the necessary requirement of registration with the

Employment Exchange before getting employment in the Government

Hospital but the work undertaken by the respondent sweepers did not

require any skill.

8. The Industrial Tribunal thus held:-

(a) That the work being taken from the respondent sweepers was

of perennial nature.

(b) Non production of the contract with the contractor M/s Laxmi

Chand & Sons by the petitioner hospital and/or non-furnishing any

particulars thereof showed that the alleged contract is a sham and

camouflage document and the contractor, if any, is a namesake. The

petitioner hospital was held to have failed to establish that the respondent

sweepers were working under the supervision of the contractor.

(c) Accordingly, the respondent sweepers were held to be the

direct employees of the petitioner hospital and held entitled to

regularization.

9. The Industrial Tribunal axiomatically, in the award in I.D. No.143 of

1996 qua the sweepers held that the sweepers having been held to be the

direct employees of the petitioner hospital and their termination being in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act and without any enquiry, was bad.

10. At this stage, the reasoning given in the award in I.D. No.142 of

1996 qua regularization of security guards may also be noticed. The

security guards in their claim petition, though claiming to be working for

the petitioner hospital and claiming regularization, sought termination of

the practice adopted by the petitioner hospital by engaging security guards

through contractor (M/s Sentinel Security Services). The Industrial

Tribunal held that, in the absence of a plea or a claim of the security guards

of being the direct employees of the petitioner hospital and in the face of

their admission of employment through the contractor M/s Sentinel

Security Services and further admission that their names were not

registered with the Employment Exchange and that they had no proof to

show that they were employed with the petitioner hospital, no relationship

of employer and employee between the petitioner hospital and the security

guards was made out and they could not be granted the relief of

regularization and that if they want the termination of the Contract Labour

System, their remedy lay before the appropriate Government under the

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and not before the

Industrial Tribunal.

11. It will thus be seen that it is not as if the case of the sweepers and the

security guards was identical. While the sweepers claimed to have been

first directly employed by the petitioner hospital and thereafter having been

forced in the Contract Labour System, the security guards at no point of

time claimed to be the direct employees of the petitioner hospital.

12. Yet, there are some inconsistencies in the award qua sweepers and

security guards. While in the award qua the security guards, their non

registration with the Employment Exchange, non possession of any proof

of employment with the petitioner hospital, non deduction of any fund from

their salaries has been held to be against them, the same factors qua the

sweepers have not been given any weightage.

13. The counsel for the petitioner hospital has also contended that the

Industrial Tribunal in the face of admissions of the sweepers at the time of

raising the dispute of working under the contractor (even if forcibly), erred

in placing the onus on the petitioner hospital of establishing that the

sweepers were engaged through the contractor. It is also contended that the

petitioner hospital had not proved the contract, neither with M/s Sentinel

Security Services qua the security guards nor with M/s Laxmi Chand &

Sons qua the sweepers; notwithstanding the same, adverse inference has

been drawn by the Industrial Tribunal for non production of the agreement

with M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons regarding sweepers while upholding the

employment of the security guards to be through M/s Sentinel Security

Services. It is also urged that the Industrial Tribunal has illegally held that

the petitioner hospital was required to be registered under the Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act for engaging the sweepers through a

contractor. It is urged that there is no prohibition under the said Act for

engaging sweepers through a contractor and thus no question of requiring

any registration arose. It is urged that there is no basis for treating the

contract with M/s Sentinel Security Services qua the security guards as

valid while holding the contract with M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons qua the

sweepers to be a sham or a camouflage. Reliance is also placed on the order

dated 20th December, 2006 (supra) dismissing the writ petition of the

security guards. The contention of the security guards was that the

Industrial Tribunal erred in not holding the contract with M/s Sentinel

Security Services to be sham and make-believe. This Court held that the

security guards had not raised any dispute about the contract being a sham

or a camouflage and without such plea, no such finding could have been

returned. It was further held that the security guards had wrongly claimed

to be the direct employees of the petitioner hospital and thus entitled to

regularization and which claim was found to be bad.

14. The counsel for the respondent sweepers has drawn out the

distinction in the claim petitions of the security guards and the sweepers. It

is contended that the security guards had never claimed initial direct

employment with the petitioner hospital. It is urged that if the petitioner

hospital had produced the bills of the contractor, the names of the sweepers

engaged through the contractor would have been mentioned in that. It is

contended that adverse inference ought to be drawn against the petitioner

hospital for non production of the bills; it is capable of only one inference

that the names of the respondent sweepers did not find mention in the said

bills. It is further urged that the petitioner hospital has failed to produce the

contract with M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons or its bills before this Court also. It

is also argued that the findings of the Tribunal are factual in nature and are

not capable of interference in the writ jurisdiction. Reference is made to the

counter affidavit filed listing out the judgment in support of the said

proposition.

15. The counsel for the petitioner hospital in rejoinder has referred to

Manager, Reserve Bank of India Vs. S. Mani (2005) 5 SCC 100 laying

down that in the face of denial, the initial burden of proof is on the

workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service.

16. I am unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner

hospital that the petitions are entitled to be decided in favour of the

petitioner hospital solely on the ground of the inconsistent awards qua the

security guards and sweepers and dismissal of the writ petition preferred by

the security guards. As noticed above, there exist distinguishing features

between the case set up by the security guards and by the respondent

sweepers. The matter thus required to be considered is whether the award,

holding the respondent sweepers to be employees of the petitioner hospital

solely for the reason of the petitioner hospital having failed to produce the

contract with M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons and/or bills raised by the said

contractor, is perverse and/or capable of interference in the limited scope

thereof by way of judicial review.

17. The relevant factors in this regard are, firstly the admission of the

respondent sweepers that at the time of raising the dispute they had been

forced into Contract Labour System and were employed through a

contractor; secondly, their claim that prior thereto they had been employed

directly by the petitioner hospital and which claim was denied by the

petitioner hospital; and lastly the admission nevertheless of the petitioner

hospital that the respondent sweepers were working in the petitioner

hospital albeit through the contractor M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons.

18. In my view, the Tribunal totally misdirected the enquiry. The

question for determination was not whether the respondent sweepers were

then employed directly or through a contractor (in as much as that status

was admitted), but whether the respondent sweepers were initially

employed directly by the petitioner hospital and thereafter forced with a

contractor, as contended by them. In the face of denial by the petitioner

hospital of the respondent sweepers having been first employed directly,

the initial burden to prove the said fact was on the respondent sweepers.

How were the respondent sweepers expected to discharge the said burden.

They could have examined witnesses who would have deposed that they

had been working in the petitioner hospital since prior to the date of the

agreement with M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons. No such witnesses were

examined. There was no need for them to examine any witnesses to prove

that they were working for the petitioner hospital after the contractor M/s

Laxmi Chand & Sons has come in picture inasmuch as the said fact is

admitted. The petitioner hospital as aforesaid is a Government concern. If

the respondent sweepers had been in employment of the petitioner hospital

and receiving wages from before, in the normal course they would have a

pay slip or other document in proof of payment. No such pay slip has been

proved. Even if there was no such pay slip, the respondent sweepers could

have called for the accounts of the petitioner hospital which would have

contained entries of payments, if any, to them. No such attempt was made.

It was put to the respondent sweepers in their cross-examination as to

whether they were members of the union of the employees of the petitioner

hospital; they answered in the affirmative but could not furnish any proof of

being member thereof; no effort was made to examine any office bearer of

the union to prove that they, as employees of the petitioner hospital, were

members of the union since prior to the contract with M/s Laxmi Chand &

Sons. Though the respondent sweepers in their claim petition itself had

pleaded that they, inspite of initial direct employment, had been forced in

the Contract Labour System but they neither gave any dates nor the

particulars of the contractor through whom they were forced to work. They

did not even say that the said contractor was anyone other than M/s Laxmi

Chand & Sons.

19. The Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai

Rabari AIR 2005 SC 2799 has held that the burden of proof that a claimant

was in the employment of a management, primarily lies on the workman

who claims to be a workman though the degree of proof so required would

vary from case to case. Similarly, in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt.

Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2004 SC 1639 it was held that it is

a well settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of

existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden to prove

the same would be upon him.

20. As far as the petitioner hospital not producing the contract with M/s

Laxmi Chand & Sons or the bills raised by the said contractor is concerned,

in my view the same is of no relevance inasmuch as it was the admitted

position that the respondent sweepers had been forced to work through the

contractor. The said fact was thus not required to be proved by the

petitioner hospital.

21. The aforesaid error committed by the Tribunal is such, which has

resulted in the answer to the reference being misdirected and is capable of

interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

22. The findings of the Tribunal that the contract of the petitioner

hospital with M/s Laxmi Chand & Sons is a make believe and a sham is

also a finding beyond the reference. No such case was set up by the

respondent sweepers. In the absence of the respondent sweepers setting up

such a case, the Tribunal could not have returned findings thereon.

23. Resultantly, the writ petitions succeed. The award of the Tribunal in

I.D. No. 93 of 1996 holding the respondent sweepers to be entitled to

regularization is set aside/quashed. The award in I.D. No. 143 of 1996

holding the respondent sweepers to be the direct employees of the

petitioner hospital and further holding the petitioner hospital to have

terminated their employment is also set aside/quashed. The petitions having

succeeded, the amounts, if any, received by the respondent sweepers in

terms of the order under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, in excess of the last

drawn wages are required to be refunded by them; they have also given

undertaking to this effect. The respondent sweepers are directed to refund

the said amounts to the petitioner hospital within six months hereof. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 2nd June, 2010 bs