Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2376 (DEL)

MUMTAZ v. CONTINENTAL TELEPOWER INDUSTRIES LTD.

2007-09-21

Hima Kohli

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing a no relief award dated 1st December, 2006 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 91/05. The award was passed with the observation that the petitioner workman failed to establish that he was employed with the respondent management and accordingly, the first issue, i. e. as to whether there existed a relationship of employer and the employee between the parties was decided against the petitioner workman. Consequently, the second issue framed in terms of the reference made to the Labour Court, i. e. whether the services of the petitioner workman were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the respondent management was also answered against the petitioner workman. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner workman submits that the Labour Court did not take into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner workman in support of his case that he was employed by the respondent management. In this regard, she draws the attention of the court to the observation of the Labour court in respect of issue No. 1 at Page 16 of the writ paper book. It is stated that the petitioner workman had filed a postal receipt of a letter sent by the union to the management as also copy of the letters sent by the union to the conciliation Officer along with copies of receipts of money orders to establish the petitioner workman was employed with the respondent management. ( 3 ) AFTER examining the documents placed on the record, the Labour court arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had not filed any documents which were relevant for adjudicating the said issue in favour of the petitioner, including his letter of appointment, monthly payment slips, deduction of PF, payment of any dues or any other correspondence with the respondent management wherein it was admitted that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent management, to establish the employee-employer relationship between the petitioner workman and the respondent management. ( 4 ) KEEPING in view the position of law as discussed by the Supreme court in the case of M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Wormen and others reported as AIR 1972 SC 330 , and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dhyan Singh Vs. ( 4 ) KEEPING in view the position of law as discussed by the Supreme court in the case of M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Wormen and others reported as AIR 1972 SC 330 , and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dhyan Singh Vs. Raman Lal reported as 2001 (88) FLR 230 , the Labour court arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner workman had not filed any documents of the nature indicated above, to show that he was employed with the respondent management. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the respondent management had not issued any letter of appointment to the petitioner or deducted any PF dues etc. to enable the petitioner workman to place on record the said documents. Upon being asked as to whether the petitioner workman summoned the attendance register from the respondent management to establish his case, the answer is in the negative. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner further draws the attention of the court to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner workman by one Sh. Ram saran (WW-3) to state that his evidence was wrongly disbelieved by the Labour court on the ground that he did not have any letter or other documents to show that he was in the employment of the respondent management. She seeks to place reliance on certain documents annexed to the writ paper book pertaining to an industrial dispute between some other workman in ID No. 691/1998 in support of her contention that the said workman was employed by the respondent management. In view of the fact that none of these documents were placed on the record before the Labour Court or proved by affidavit or by evidence adduced by a witness, it will not be appropriate for this court to consider the same for the purposes of examining the impugned award, while exercising the powers of judicial review. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, it is held that after taking into consideration all the material placed on the record, including the deposition of the parties and the witnesses, the Labour Court had no option but to arrive at a conclusion that the the petitioner was unable to establish that he was employed with the respondent management. This court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned award which warrant interference. This court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned award which warrant interference. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.