Delhi High Court
K.R. Manglam World School & Anr vs Ram Babu And Anr on 30 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 3828/2011
K.R. MANGLAM WORLD SCHOOL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Inder Jit Singh, Advocate
Versus
RAM BABU AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: None
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?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 2 nd April, 2011 of the
Industrial Adjudicator in two industrial disputes still pending before him,
dismissing the application of the petitioners for recasting of the issues
framed. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Industrial
Adjudicator while framing the issues had wrongly placed the onus on the
petitioners employers while the same should have been on the respondent
workmen. It is contended that it is for the respondent workmen to prove
whether they had worked for a period of more than 240 days with the
petitioners or not.
2. The writ petitions impugning such interim orders of the Industrial
Adjudicator are ordinarily not entertainable and the challenge if any to
such orders is to be made along with the final award if any against the
party. Reference may be made to M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Vs.
Presiding Officer Labour (2010) IV LLJ 739 Del., D.P. Maheshwari Vs.
Delhi Administration (1983) 4 SCC 293, Shops and Commercial Workers
Union Vs. Management of Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College Board
MANU/DE/0176/1979, National Council for Cement and Building
Material Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 3 SCC 206 & Cooper Engineering
Ltd. Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe MANU/SC/0360/1975 deprecating the practice
of entertaining challenge to interim orders and which has the effect of
staying the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator and delaying the
disposal thereof. The petition is thus not found to be maintainable for this
reason alone.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has however insisted upon arguing
the petition on merits.
4. In this regard, I may notice that the petitioners do not controvert
employment of the respondent workmen but contend that the said
employment to be for less than 240 days. I have enquired from the counsel
for the petitioners as to what will be the record with the respondent
workmen of employment on a particular day. No answer has been
forthcoming. The counsel for the petitioners has admitted that it is the
petitioners who would be maintaining the record showing whether on a
particular day the respondent workmen were given work or not. The Apex
Court also recently in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohammed
Rafi (2009) 11 SCC 522 laying down that the provisions of Evidence Act
do not apply to proceedings under Section 10 of the I.D. Act and according
to general principles, burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he
had worked for 240 days in a year, nevertheless observed that in cases of
termination of services of daily wage earners, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination and no receipt or proof of payment and it is
only the employer who can produce before the Court the nominal muster
roll for the given period, wage register, attendance register etc. In this
view of the matter also, no error can be found with the order of the
Industrial Adjudicator, in the facts of the present case, making the
petitioners aware that it is they who have to prove as to for how many days
they took work from the respondent workmen.
5. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 30, 2011
'gsr'
