Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Narender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Mgmt. of M/s Maman Chand Ramji Das – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12520 of 2005
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Mr. Piyush Sharma, Ms.Sakshi and Mr. Shivam, Advocates with petitioner in Person, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suryakant Singla and Ms. Karnika Dubey, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish employment status, and expert opinions based on xerox copies may be deemed unreliable.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Employment Status - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F - Handwriting Expert Opinion
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be an employee of the respondent, seeking reinstatement and arrears. The respondent denied the employment relationship and argued that the petitioner was employed by one of the partners. The Labour Court held in favor of the respondent, acknowledging the petitioner's work but rejecting the employment claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove employment with the respondent, citing lack of documentary evidence and testimony. The court upheld the award for the balance amount of Rs.17,500 to be paid by the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was the employment status of the petitioner and the non-payment of arrears. The court also addressed the admissibility of the handwriting expert's opinion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish employment and highlighted the unreliability of the handwriting expert's opinion based on xerox copies. It affirmed the Labour Court's decision based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Labour Court's award.
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the award dated 16.07.2004 ("the impugned award") passed by the learned Labour Court Karkardooma, Delhi in Industrial Dispute No. 1495/1997. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court adjudicated the dispute in favour of the Respondent and held that the Petitioner failed to prove that he was under the employment of the Respondent. Learned Labour Court further considered the fact that the Petitioner worked at the premises of the Respondent for 11 years and hence he is entitled to get an amount of 10 months' salary amounting to Rs.33,500/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.35,000/- in the impugned Award) towards his full and final settlement. Learned Labour Court noted that the Respondent already paid Rs.16,000/- and hence directed the Respondent to pay the Petitioner a balance of Rs.17,500/- (Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Rupees) towards his full and final settlement.
2. The Respondent/Management complied with the impugned Award and made the payment of Rs.17,500/- to the Petitioner vide cheque dated 04.08.2007 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT DISPUTE
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was working as a clerk/supervisor with the management of the Respondent since 14.01.1985, earning a salary of Rs.3,350/- per mensem. Allegedly, dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent has its genesis from the time when despite numerous requests from the Petitioner, the Petitioner's name was not updated in the employment register/record of the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent since 01.05.1996 failed to duly remunerate the Petitioner for his services and on 04.07.1996, the Petitioner was terminated from the service without payment of arrears. The petitioner on 28.09.1996 served upon the Respondent legal notice demanding payment of arrears of his salary and immediate reinstatement in the service.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid termination and non-payment of arrears, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate authority. After being satisfied with the existence of an industrial dispute between the parties, the Appropriate government referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court with the following terms of reference:
"Whether the discharge of services of Sh. Narender Kumar have been terminated illegally and or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
5. The Petitioner filed his statement of claims wherein it was averred that the Petitioner was in a continuous and permanent employment of the Respondent. It was further contended that the Respondent illegally terminated services of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act") and failed to clear the arrears of the salary accrued to him.
6. Subsequently, the Respondent via the written statement contested the claims made by the Petitioner and contended that there existed no employer-employee relationship between the parties to the dispute. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner was employed by one of the partners of the Respondent, Sh. Rajesh Kumar who used to take the assistance of the Petitioner for the work related to the Respondent. The Petitioner was never appointed by the Respondent and all his salary was paid by Sh. Rajesh Kumar in his personal capacity. Furthermore, the Petitioner amicably settled his account in full and final settlement vide its receipt dated 04.07.1996 which was duly signed by the Petitioner.
7. In order to substantiate his claim, the Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavit as Exhibit WW1/A relying on the documents Exhibit WW1/1 to Exhibit WW1/7. Whereas, the Respondent examined, Sh. Rajesh Kumar as MW1 who tendered his affidavit as Exhibit MW1/A a
