The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence to refute claims, the necessity of communication from the management regarding employee absence, and the requirement to adequately challenge opposing pleas.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner (management) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the validity, propriety and legality of the impugned award dated 24.08.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court XVI in ID No. 364/08/94 vide which a sum of Rs.3 lacs each was awarded to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (workmen).

2. The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are that both the workmen (respondent nos. 1 and 2) were working as commercial drivers with the petitioner – management. Feeling aggrieved by the termination of their services, they raised industrial dispute which was referred by the National Capital Territory of Delhi, through its Secretary (Labour) vide reference number F-24(982)/94/ Lab. 34780-85 dated 15.07.95 to the Labour Court with following terms of reference:

“Whether termination of services of Sh. Surender Singh and Khursad Ahmed is illegal and / or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. Both the workmen filed their statement of claim. Workman – Surender Singh in his statement of claim alleged that he joined the services of the management on 01.12.1987 and was performing his duty as commercial driver. His last drawn salary was Rs.2,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved by the complaint made by the workmen regarding non-payment of bonus, casual leaves, medical expenses and basic amenities, etc. his services were terminated with effect from 11.04.1993. Thereafter, a demand notice was sent to the management dated 22.04.1993 by registered post and UPC which was duly received by the management but no reply was sent. Hence, it was alleged that the termination of services of the workman is unjust and improper and as such he is entitled for reinstatement with full back-wages and with continuity of service.

4. The claim filed by the other workman, namely, Khurshid Ahmed was almost on similar lines except the fact that according to him he joined the services of the management on 01.12.1984 and he also alleged that he was performing his duties as commercial driver and his last drawn salary was Rs.2,000/- per month. Without assigning any reason, his services were terminated with effect from 11.04.1993.

5. The notice of the claim was sent to the management but initially the management did not appear, as such, it was proceeded ex parte. At the stage of ex parte evidence, an application was moved by the management for setting aside the ex parte order which was set aside subject to payment of costs.

6. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the management wherein it was denied that the workmen were working as commercial drivers with the management. As regards Khurshid Ahmed, it was alleged that he was engaged as daily-wager to load and unload the goods from the tempo and he was called as and when his services were required by the management. It was denied that his last drawn salary was Rs.2,000/- per month. It was alleged that the management firm is a very small firm doing a small business of sale and purchase of tiles, etc. It was denied that his services were terminated with effect from 11.04.1993 and in fact he himself absconded the services of the management. As regards workman – Surender Singh, the relationship of employee and employer itself was denied.

7. After completion of pleadings following issue was framed on 04.10.1999:

“1. As per the terms of reference.”

8. During the course of proceedings, an application was moved by the management seeking amendment of the written statement which was allowed and thereafter the amended written statement was filed wherein it was alleged that the management used to have two commercial vehicles i.e. DBL 2588 and DL IL 1237 which used to be driven by Surender Singh and Khurshid Ahmed respectively. However, both these vehicles have already been sold by the management in the year 1995 and 1997 respective