The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for workmen to provide cogent evidence, other than self-serving affidavits, to prove their claims under the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the award dated 19. 7. 1999 passed by the Labour Court-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity in service.

( 2 ) PETITIONER pleaded that it was involved in manufacturing of Air cooler bodies and its business closed down in March, 1996. One Hari Ram, r/o A-367 of Jahangirpuri was engaged on contract basis by the management for the manufacture of cooler bodies. Hari Ram had further employed three persons under him to carry out his contract. Hari Ram had given a copy of his ration card as proof of his name and residence. However, one person filed a complaint before the Labour Commissioner in the name of Harish Kumar Sharma and falsely alleged that he was an employee of the petitioner. Since, there was no person in the name of Harish Kumar Sharma known to the Management, it did not receive the summons sent by the Labour Commissioner or Labour Court. No notice was issued to the management in respect of Hari Ram. The management was proceeded ex-parte. The respondent misled the court and gave false evidence of being an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner learnt about the award only when a person from assistant Collector office visited for recovery in July, 2001. The petitioner, thereafter moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was dismissed by the Labour Court. Petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition challenging the award.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, respondent stated that petitioner received notice of the Labour Court on 9. 9. 1997 and 12. 2. 1998 but did not appear before the Labour Court. Petitioner has approached high Court just to frustrate the implementation of the award. It was denied that management closed down its business in March, 1996. It is alleged that the management was still existing at the same address. He denied that he was engaged on contract basis. The management had not produced any document which showed that he was engaged on contract basis. Regarding his name he stated that he was called by both the names viz. Harish Kumar Sharma and Hari Ram. His name Harish Kumar Sharma was more popular among his family members, so he raised the dispute in the name of Harish Kumar Sharma and not in the name of Hari Ram. He denied that the service of the summon was not effected on the management as alleged due to the wrong name.

( 4 ) A perusal of award would show that the respondent had not produced any document of his service with petitioner either in the name of harish Kumar Sharma or Hari Ram. His plea was that no service record was maintained by the petitioner, no appointment letter was issued to him and he was serving with the management from 14. 1. 1989 and his services were terminated on 22. 4. 1996.

( 5 ) THE respondent even failed to produce before the Labour Court the complaint allegedly lodged with the Labour Department and the demand notice allegedly served upon the management on the ground that they were misplaced. The Labour Court, placing reliance on the affidavit of the respondent, without any supporting document held that respondent was an employee of the petitioner and termination of his service amounted to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 6 ) DURING arguments Counsel for petitioner submitted that Harish kumar Sharma had no connection with the petitioner. The respondent was a fraud. Only Hari Ram had worked with the petitioner on contract basis. It was further argued that the award was perverse and nullity in the eyes of law because there was no evidence to prove that the respondent was an employee of petitioner or had worked with the petitioner for 240 days in preceding twelve months. A self serving affidavit of respondent was no proof of his working for 240 days in a year.

( 7 ) ON the other hand the counsel for respondent argued that it was a mistake on the part of respondent that he r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document