Delhi High Court
M/S. Chancellor Industries ... vs Govt. Of National Capital ... on 27 October, 2010
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) Nos. 96/1997 &881/1997
% 27th October, 2010
1. W.P.(C) No.96/1997
SHRI RAM PAL AND ANOTHER ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO.1, DELHI AND
ANOTHER ....Respondents
Through: None.
2. W.P.(C) No.881/1997
M/S. CHANCELLOR INDUSTRIES (INDIA) .....Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & OTHERS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,
Advocate for the
respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
WP(C) Nos. 96/1997 & 881/1997 Page 1
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (Oral)
W.P.(C) No.96/1997
1. The challenge by means of this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned Award
dated 16.8.1996 passed by the Labour Court dismissing the claim
of the workmen on the ground that the workmen have failed to
discharge the onus that they have worked for 240 days with
respondent No.2.
2. Admittedly, the only proof relied upon by the
workman of having worked for 240 days is a self-serving affidavit.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman,
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shyamal Chandra
Bhowmik AIR 2006 SC 392 that mere affidavit of self serving
statement made by the workman is not sufficient to discharge
the burden on the workman that he has completed 240 days of
service. The Supreme Court has held that in such a case there is
no question of shifting of onus and which would arise only when
the evidence is led by the workman. Since in the present case,
no evidence has been led by the workmen of having worked for
more than 240 days, a fact which was denied by the respondent
No.2, I do not find any ex-facie illegality or perversity in the
Award for interference for exercising the jurisdiction of this Court
WP(C) Nos. 96/1997 & 881/1997 Page 2
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I may also note
that since the Award is way back of the year 1996, the workmen
would obviously in the meanwhile sought and obtained
employment elsewhere. Since they would have been gainfully
employed elsewhere it is for this reason that they are not
contacting their Advocate who has argued the case on the basis
of the record available.
3. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the
petition which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
W.P.(C) No.881/1997
4. The challenge by means of this writ petition is by the
Management to the same impugned Award whereby respondent
No.3 herein succeeded and whose reinstatement was directed by
the impugned Award.
5. The only piece of evidence relied upon by the Labour
Court to hold that the workman has worked for 240 days is self
serving affidavit. As already stated above, Supreme Court in the
case of Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
(supra) has held that a self serving affidavit is not evidence in
the eyes of law to discharge the proof of onus to work for 240
days. It is not understood as to how the Labour Court arrived at a
finding on the basis of mere ipse dixit and self serving affidavit.
WP(C) Nos. 96/1997 & 881/1997 Page 3
There is clear case of illegality in the impugned Award when it
holds that the workman has discharged its onus of proof. The
impugned Award is therefore liable to be set aside and is
therefore set aside as such.
6. I may note that even in this case, the respondent No.3
has not contacted his Advocate who has argued on the basis of
the record. A peculiar fact is that although the workman
succeeded, no application was filed under Section 17(b) for
taking benefit of the Award. This is surely for the reason that the
workman would be gainfully employed elsewhere and that too
may be at better terms. It is for this reason that neither the
application under Section 17(b) was filed nor the workman has
chosen to contact his Advocate.
7. The petition is therefore allowed and the impugned
Award dated 16.8.1996 is set aside to the extent that it grants
reinstatement with full back wages to Sh. Gir Raj
Kishore/respondent No.3.
8. The petition is therefore disposed of as allowed
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 27, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
WP(C) Nos. 96/1997 & 881/1997 Page 4
