The obligation to demonstrate continuous employment lies with the worker, however, the Management must produce evidence to counter claims of employment.

MANOJ JAIN, J

1. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as „Management’) is aggrieved by Award dated 14.02.2019 passed in LIR No. 668/2016 whereby the respondent has been held to be in continuous employment of the Management and, resultantly, she has been awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/-.

2. Respondent had raised industrial dispute.

3. She was aggrieved by illegal termination of her services.

4. The dispute raised by her was referred to the Court for adjudication vide Reference dated 23.10.2015. Term of Reference is as under:-

"Whether the services of Smt. Sangeeta W/o Late Sh. Sudhir Prasad, have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

5. On receiving Reference, notice was issued to the respondent, who filed Statement of Claim, in which she, inter alia, averred that she was working as Safai Karamchari with the Management since May, 2007 and that her last-drawn monthly salary was Rs. 5,500/-. According to her, Management had not provided her with any facility, including various allowances like HRA, Transport Allowance, leaves etc. and despite persistent request made in this regard and despite assurance given by Management, needful was not done. She claimed therein that salary paid to her was less than the minimum wages prescribed by Delhi Government and when she raised objection in this regard with the Management, getting annoyed, the Management, instead, terminated her services on 25.04.2015.

6. Management resisted such claim and in its written statement, it rather came up with the contention that their Hospital was owned by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the sanitation services had been outsourced by them. In year 2014, M/s ACME Enterprises had been providing such sanitation services and it was the duty of such service provider to pay wages to such workers. According to Management, the name of the respondent in question i.e. Ms. Sangeeta was not even figuring in the list of workers provided by M/s ACME Enterprises and it was also denied that she was working in the hospital as Safai Karamchari since May, 2007. The Management also claimed in its written statement that in September 2014, contractor left the services, suo moto, without any prior notice and in order to ensure that there is no disruption of sanitation services and also in view of the fact that there was no breathing-time to make any alternate arrangement, sanitation workers were hired on daily-wage basis. However, once the new tender for sanitation services in DDU Hospital was finalized in April, 2015 and the Award was given to the concerned service provider as per tender outcome, services of daily-wage workers were discontinued. The Management also claimed that it had not obtained signatures of any such daily-wager on a blank paper or voucher and it also provided the details of minimum wages, paid to respondent between 03.09.2014 to 24.04.2015.

7. Thus, it was contended that respondent was not working on regular basis and was not appointed as regular employee in the hospital and being daily-wager, her claim had no merit and, therefore, it prayed that claim be dismissed.

8. Following issues were framed: -

(i) Whether the claimant/workman was the employee of the management? OPW.

(ii) Whether the claimant was the employee of the contractor as alleged by the management? OPM (iii) Whether the claimant has completed 240 days continuous service with the management immediately preceding the alleged date of termination? OPW.

(iv) Whether the claimant worked with the management for few days as daily wager, if so, its effect? OPM.

(v) Whether the services of the workman has been terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably? OPW (vi) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed? OPW (vii) Relief.”

9. Respondent entered into witness