Delhi High Court
Vishwanath Pandey vs M/S Madan Gopal Keshav Chandra on 20 September, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8170/2016 & CM Nos.33793-94/2016
VISHWANATH PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nagmani Roy, Advocate.
Versus
M/S MADAN GOPAL KESHAV CHANDRA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 20.09.2016
1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XVI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID
No. 87/12, which has not found any relationship of employer and employee
between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner led evidence as
under:-
"6. Workman appeared as WW1 and filed his affidavit
Ex, WW1/A bearing his Signature at pointAand B.
stating therein all the facts which were stated by him in
his statement of claim. He also relied upon the
documents EX.WW1/1 to EX.WW1/1P. Ex. WW1/1 is
the demand notice dated 06.09.2011, Ex. WW1/2 is the
postal receipt, Ex. WW1/3 is the complaint dated
06.09.2011 written to PS Lahori Gate, Ex. WW1/4 is the
postal receipt. Ex. WW1/5 and Ex. WWl/6 are the
complaints dated 21.04.2011 and 15.07.2011 made
before Labour Office, Ex. WW1/7 is the report of Labour
Inspector, Ex. WW1/8 is the statement of claim filed
before Conciliation Officer, Ex. WW1/9 is an
undertaking dated 21.02.2011 given by the management
for payment of bonus and Ex. WW1/10 (collectively) are
the personal letters of workman which were received by
him at the Management address."
2. The evidence was considered as under:
"7. Sh. Anand Singh, Ex. Labour Inspector appeared
as WW2 and deposed that on 09.07.2011 he had
inspected the premises of the management and met with
Sh. Ankur, Proprietor of management. He also found one
Sh. Ravi who was working with the management. He
further deposed that he served a notice upon the
management directing the proprietor of the management
to appear in the office of Labour Commissioner for
14.07.2011, copy of which was proved by him as
Ex.WW2/1 bearing his signatures at point A. He further
deposed that he also served another notice dated
08.08.2011, copy of which was proved as Ex. WW2/2
bearing his signature at point A but none appeared on
behalf of management..He stated that thereafter, he
prepared report dated 24.09.2011 which was already
proved as Ex.WW1/7 bearing his signature at point A."
3. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner
was asked to show if there is any document to prove that the petitioner was
ever paid any monies by the respondent or any other document to prove that
there was an employer - employee relationship between the petitioner and
the respondent during 1998 till 2011, but no affirmative answer has come
forth. There is nothing on record to presume that such relationship ever
existed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the statement of
Mr.Anand Singh, Ex-Labour Inspector, who had been examined as WW2,
which reads as under:-
"WW2-Sh.Anand Singh, Ex-Labour Inspector, presented
posted as Head Clerk, PAO-25, Inside Peeragarhi Bus
Depot, New Delhi.
ONSA
On 09.07.2011 I inspected the premises of the
management and on reaching there, one Sh. Ankur,
Proprietor met me. I also found one Sh. Ravi who was
working with the management. I served a notice upon the
management directing the proprietor of the management
to appear in the office of Labour Commissioner for
14.07.11. Copy of the notice is Ex.WW2/1 bears my
signature at point A. I also served another notice on
08.08.11, copy of the same is Ex.WW2/2 bears my
signatures at point A. But none appeared on behalf of
management and I also prepared the report dated
24.08.11. The same are already exhibited as Ex. WW1/7
bearing my signatures at point A(OS&R)."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid
statement shows that there was a preponderance of probability to conclude
that the said relationship existed. However, this Court is unable to draw any
such conclusion from the aforesaid deposition of the Ex-Labour Inspector.
It does not show even prima facie, let alone conclusively, that any such
relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent. The
statement only refers to a process which was initiated on behalf of the
Labour Commissioner. The onus of proving the relationship of employee
and employer between the petitioner and the respondent lies upon the
petitioner workman, this onus has not been discharged by him.
6. Having considered the above and the reasoning in the impugned
order, this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned order and sees no
need to interfere with it.
7. Accordingly, the petition alongwith the pending applications is
dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
sb
