Delhi High Court
Anurudh Prasad vs P.O. Labour Court (Delhi-Iii) And ... on 4 July, 2013
Author: Najmi Waziri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 1st July, 2013
Decided on : 4th July, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 6786/2000
ANURUDH PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
versus
P.O. LABOUR COURT (DELHI-III) AND ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
% HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
1. This is a petition filed against the award dated 17.1.2000 passed by
the Labour Court No. III in I.D. No. 71/87 which held inter alia that the
petitioner was not an employee of M/s Tej Press. The two issues to be
determined by the Labour Court were:
1. "Whether there exists any relationship of employer and employee?"
2. "As per terms of reference."
Finding to the said issues was returned as under:
The onus to prove this issues (sic: issue), was on the
workman. The workman, however, has not produced any
evidence to establish the relationship of employer and employee
between him and the management of M/s Tej Press except that
2/3 letters were received by him at the address of the
W.P.(C) 6786/2000 Page 1
management. In the notice of demand as well as the statement
of claim, the case of the workman was that he was being treated
as an employee of the Contractor in violation of the provisions
of the Factories Act. However, during evidence, when the
workman filed his affidavit, it was stated that the management
No. 1, i.e., M/s Tej Press wanted to transfer the services of the
workman to Respondent No. 2, i.e., Sh. Hazari Lal, Contractor
and when the workman had refused to do so the management
got annoyed and terminated his services. The management has
produced on record through the testimony of MW1, Sh. Vijay
Nanda that the management was publishing only one magazine,
namely, „SUN‟. The management was having contract for
printing certain other magazines for limited period. The
management had a regular Binding Department and that the
extra work was being carried out through M/s New Link
Binder, Jangpura which was owned by Sh. Hazari Lal. Nothing
was brought in cross-examination of Sh. Vijay Nanda. Not
even a suggestion was given that there was no establishment in
the name and style of M/s New Link Binder or that the same
was not being run by said Sh. Hazari Lal. It was not even the
case of the workman that M/s New Link Binder was only a
camouflage and that really the employees of M/s New Link
Binder were the employees of M/s Tej Press. Ofcourse, 2/3
letters were received by the workman at the address of the
management. That by itself would not establish the relationship
of employer and employee between the parties, particularly,
W.P.(C) 6786/2000 Page 2
when it has come during the conciliation proceedings that the
workman had worked with Sh. Hazari Lal for some time. Thus,
I hold that there was no relationship of employer and employee
between the parties, i.e., the workman and the management of
M/s Tej Press. The issue is accordingly decided against the
workman.
Since there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the parties, there was no question of
termination of services by the management of M/s Tej Press.
The workman does not alleged the termination of his services
by Respondent No. 2, ie., Sh. Hazari Lal. Thus, it cannot be
said that services of workman Sh. Anurudh Prasad had been
terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management of M/s
Tej Press. The workman is not entitled to any relief. The issue
is decided, the reference is answered and an Award is made
accordingly."
2. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the Labour Court had erred in
not taking into consideration the fact that the Wages Register for the period
1979 to 1985 was never produced in evidence by the respondent company.
Therefore, adverse inference should have been drawn in favour of the
petitioner to the effect that there existed an employer and employee
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent M/s Tej Press. A
perusal of the evidence of Sh. Vijay Nanda, (Personnel) Manager of the
respondent shows that he was not cross-examined at all by the workman.
Also vide affidavit dated 3rd June, 1999, the said Mr. Nanda had stated that
W.P.(C) 6786/2000 Page 3
he tried to procure the relevant record but it was not traceable since it was
very old i.e. belonging to 1979 to 1985. The petitioner-workman could have
adduced such other evidence, if he had any, to prove that he was an
employee of M/s Tej Press, rather than base his case on adverse inference to
be drawn from the evidence of the respondent. The petitioner has failed to
lead any substantive evidence in his favour. It was always open to the
workmen to raise appropriate questions and put suggestions to the deponent
so as to establish their case.
3. The conclusion drawn by the Labour Court is based on the correct
assessment of the facts and the law. This Court finds no reason to interfere
with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
(JUDGE)
JULY 4, 2013
mv
W.P.(C) 6786/2000 Page 4
