Vishwanath Pandey v. M/S Madan Gopal Keshav Chandra

1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XVI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 87/12, which has not found any relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner led evidence as under:- “6. Workman appeared as WW[1] and filed his affidavit Ex, WW1/A bearing his Signature at pointAand B. stating therein all the facts which were stated by him in his statement of claim. He also relied upon the documents EX.WW1/1 to EX.WW1/1P. Ex. WW1/1 is the demand notice dated 06.09.2011, Ex. WW1/2 is the postal receipt, Ex. WW1/3 is the complaint dated 06.09.2011 written to PS Lahori Gate, Ex. WW1/4 is the postal receipt. Ex. WW1/5 and Ex. WWl/6 are the complaints dated 21.04.2011 and 15.07.2011 made before Labour Office, Ex. WW1/7 is the report of Labour Inspector, Ex. WW1/8 is the statement of claim filed 2016:DHC:6635 before Conciliation Officer, Ex. WW1/9 is an undertaking dated 21.02.2011 given by the management for payment of bonus and Ex. WW1/10 (collectively) are the personal letters of workman which were received by him at the Management address.”

2. The evidence was considered as under:

3. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show if there is any document to prove that the petitioner was ever paid any monies by the respondent or any other document to prove that there was an employer – employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent during 1998 till 2011, but no affirmative answer has come forth. There is nothing on record to presume that such relationship ever existed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the statement of Mr.Anand Singh, Ex-Labour Inspector, who had been examined as WW[2], which reads as under:- “WW2-Sh.Anand Singh, Ex-Labour Inspector, presented posted as Head Clerk, PAO-25, Inside Peeragarhi Bus Depot, New Delhi. ONSA On 09.07.2011 I inspected the premises of the management and on reaching there, one Sh. Ankur, Proprietor met me. I also found one Sh. Ravi who was working with the management. I served a notice upon the management directing the proprietor of the management to appear in the office of Labour Commissioner for 14.07.11. Copy of the notice is Ex.WW2/1 bears my signature at point A. I also served another notice on 08.08.11, copy of the same is Ex.WW2/2 bears my signatures at point A. But none appeared on behalf of management and I also prepared the report dated 24.08.11. The same are already exhibited as Ex. WW1/7 bearing my signatures at point A(OS&R).”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid statement shows that there was a preponderance of probability to conclude that the said relationship existed. However, this Court is unable to draw any such conclusion from the aforesaid deposition of the Ex-Labour Inspector. It does not show even prima facie, let alone conclusively, that any such relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent. The statement only refers to a process which was initiated on behalf of the Labour Commissioner. The onus of proving the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondent lies upon the petitioner workman, this onus has not been discharged by him.

6. Having considered the above and the reasoning in the impugned order, this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned order and sees no need to interfere with it.

7. Accordingly, the petition alongwith the pending applications is dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 sb