Shri Dinesh-Ii vs M/S.Stabiline System (P) Ltd. & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3854 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   DECIDED ON : 21st AUGUST, 2014

+                          LPA 184/2014

      SHRI DINESH-II                                      ....Appellant
                           Through :      Mr.K.K.Jha Kamal, Advocate.

                                 versus


      M/S.STABILINE SYSTEM (P) LTD. & ANR.       ....Respondents
                     Through : Mr.R.Rav, Advocate for R1.
                               Ms.Raavi Birbal, Advocate with
                               Mr.Nishant Anand, Advocate for
                               R2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. In this intra - Court appeal, the Appellant - Dinesh-II is aggrieved by a judgment dated 27.11.2013 delivered by learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by him to challenge the award dated 28.02.2013 passed by Industrial Adjudicator was dismissed. Briefly stated, the Appellant‟s case before the Labour Court in LIR No.682/2011 was that he had joined the services of Respondent - M/s.Stabiline System (P) Ltd. as „Helper‟ on 22.03.2001. The Respondent terminated his services without notice or charge-sheet illegally w.e.f. 15.10.2005 withholding his salary for the month of August, September, and fifteen days of October, 2005. The Respondent contested the claim and in the

written statement categorically denied ever being employed as a „Helper‟ in M/s.Stabiline System (P) Ltd. It was contended that the Appellant was an employee of M/s.Amar Enterprises. The Labour Court framed the following issues on 21.11.2007 :

"1. Whether there existed relationship of workman and employer between the parties? OPW

2. Whether claimant is an employee of M/s.Amar Enterprises as alleged in preliminary objection No.3 in written statement? If so to what effect? OPM

3. As per terms of reference. OPW"

2. Both the parties examined witnesses to substantiate their contentions. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Appellant was unable to establish relationship of employer and employee. Accordingly, Appellant‟s claim for reinstatement with full back-wages, continuity in service and other consequential benefits was declined. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant preferred writ petition which did not find favour and was dismissed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Only contention of the Appellant‟s counsel is that the matter needs to be remanded to enable the Appellant to summon relevant record of employees from the Respondent management to prove relationship of employer and employee. He urged that the Respondent is statutorily bound to maintain the said record pursuant to the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

4. Perusal of the record reveals that from the inception, the Respondent had categorically denied the Appellant to be its employee. It

was specifically contended that he was an employee of M/s.Amar Enterprises. The Industrial Adjudicator had framed specific issues and the parties were given reasonable opportunities to establish their case. The Appellant examined Parmanand, Sushil Kumar and Smt.Madhuri Bakshi in his defence besides examining himself as WW-1. The Respondent examined Vikrant Jain and Om Prakash as witnesses. The findings of the learned Industrial Adjudicator were that in the absence of any appointment letter, salary slip or any other document showing relationship of employer and employee, the Appellant could not prove himself to have been employed as helper with the Respondent / Management. These findings recorded by the learned Industrial Adjudicator cannot be considered perverse. WW-4 (Madhuri Bakshi) - Proprietor of M/s.Amar Enterprises specifically deposed on oath that the Appellant was an employee of M/s.Amar Enterprises and she had no concern with M/s.Stabiline System (P) Ltd. in which her late husband was one of the directors. WW-3 (Sushil Kumar), in the cross-examination, admitted that Dinesh-II was working with M/s.Amar Enterprises. The Appellant did not produce on record any employment / appointment letter, salary slip or other cogent document showing him to be an employee of the Respondent. ESI card (Ex.WW-1/2) was issued on the basis of Ex.MW- 2/1 given on behalf of M/s.Amar Enterprises. The Appellant did not summon any record from the Respondent management to show his employment any time there. Merely because he was residing in the vicinity of the Respondent, it does not make him its employee. The burden was heavily upon the Appellant to prove jural relationship of employer and employee which he miserably failed to do. It is not denied that

M/s.Stabiline System (P) Ltd. and M/s.Amar Enterprises are two different and separate concerns. The Appellant even did not bother to implead M/s.Amar Enterprises as a party to the claim.

5. In the light of above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

(REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE AUGUST 21, 2014 tr