Rajender Prasad Pant v. M/s Exchange Agencies & Anr.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is arising out of order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 11076/2022 titled Rajender Prasad Pant Vs. M/s Exchange Agencies & Anr.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court preferred an application under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (the Act) before the Authority under the Act stating that he was Digitaaly appointed as Clerk w.e.f. 19.04.2018 with Respondent No.1 and drawing wages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month and his services were discontinued on 12.08.2018. A claim was made for payment of wages for the period from 19.04.2018 to 12.08.2018 amounting to Rs.1,90,000/-. Issues were framed by the Authority under the Act and the Authority under the Act has dismissed the claim as no appointment order nor sufficient material was brought to the notice of the Authority under the Act to establish that the Appellant was appointed at a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. Paragraph 9 onwards of the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Authority under the Act is reproduced as under:

3. The Appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Authority under the Act came up before this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 11076/2022 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition holding that the Appellant did not produce any appointment order and, therefore, the Authority under the Act was justified in dismissing the claim by holding that no appointment order or material evidence was brought on record. The Order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under: “ The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19th May, 2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of four months‟ salary w.e.f. 19th April, 2018 to 12th August, 2018 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority has rejected the claim despite there being sufficient Digitaaly material on record. It has been further submitted that the respondent-management did not even lead any evidence and therefore the case of the petitioner was uncontroverted. I have perused the impugned order. The authority in the impugned order notes that the evidence produced by the petitioner-claimant did not prove his case. The entire evidence produced by the petitioner-claimant had been appreciated and it was inter alia held that the same were not sufficient to prove the claim of the claimant against the respondent. It has been noted that the respondent is an educated person and was appointed at a salary of Rs.50,000/- p.m. and therefore he was expected to file some material evidence i.e. appointment letter, salary slip etc. on the record to prove the relationship of employee and employer but no such document/evidence has been placed on record. The writ jurisdiction conferred on the Court is although wide but has to be exercised in circumspection. This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The order of the authority cannot be displaced merely because this Court can take another opinion on the same material. The petitioner is an educated person and is a graduate from Delhi University. To say that he was not given any documents when he joined the services does not hold any ground. The petitioner had to be aware of his rights and should have insisted for the documents. This is not the case where the petitioner is an illiterate person or had been working as a labourer. The petitioner herein, is a professional and an expert in accountancy. It is also cardinal principle that one who makes the claim is bound to prove the same. The claim could not have been granted on the bald assertion. This Court considers that there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. There is no substance in the present petition. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.” Digitaaly

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that there was no appointment order ever issued to the Appellant. It was only an oral agreement/ appointment order and he was required to handle the accountancy work entrusted to him. In these circumstances, as he has worked for the period from 19.04.2018 to 12.08.2018, he is entitled to wages.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari, (2005) 10 SCC

792;

(ii) Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs. Shamim Mirza,

(iii) Upendra Choudhury Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd & Others, 2022 SCC

(iv) M/s Packbill Enterprises Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mishra @ Pappu,

6. This Court has carefully gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellant and the undisputed facts of the case reveal that, except for a bald statement made by the Appellant that the Appellant has worked as clerk for the period from 19.04.2018 to 12.08.2018, no other material evidence to establish his claim has been brought on record except a purchase invoice. The Authority under the Act has dealt with the invoice dated 06.08.2016 – which is in respect of the BUSY Accounting Software Digitaaly purchased in his name, which was upgraded by the Dinky’s, C-14, Meerut Road Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – which is Mr. A.C. Khanna’s Firm, vide Bill No.KS/18-19/0104 dated 25.08.2018. The Appellant has claimed that he has purchased the BUSY Accounting Software in his name. However, the said Software was purchased on 06.08.2016, i.e. much before the Appellant joined the Respondent M/s Exchange Agencies – which is owned by Mr. A.C. Khanna and Mrs. Monika Khanna. It is true that the said Software was upgraded by the Dinky’s, C-14, Meerut Road Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the Appellant has claimed that Dinky’s is the firm of Mr. A.C. Khanna – who is partner of M/s Exchange Agencies. The aforesaid document does not establish that the appellant has worked with M/s Exchange Agencies at any point of time, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as there is no material evidence on record to establish that the Appellant has worked for the period from 19.04.2018 to 12.08.2018 with the Respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the Authority under the Act and the learned Single Judge were justified in rejecting the claim of the Appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed heavy reliance on Bank of Baroda (supra). In the said case, the Respondent before the Supreme Court made a claim that he was employed by Bank of Baroda and the said Bank came up with the plea that the Bank allotted a car to some of its executives but the bank did not provide a driver for the car and the responsibility of having a driver was that of the executive concerned, and if such an executive appointed a driver, the employment of the driver came to an end with the executive’s retirement or transfer. In those circumstances, Digitaaly the appeal of Bank of Baroda was dismissed as the workman therein was able to make out a prima facie case regarding his engagement.

8. In the present case, the Appellant workman has not been able to even make out a prima-facie case regarding his engagement with the Respondent No.1 and, therefore, the Authority under the Act and the learned Single Judge were justified in declining relief to the Appellant.