Delhi District Court
Deepak Khanna vs Ms Janki Prasad Motors on 28 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15)
CNR No. DLCT13-007185-2015
In the matter of:
Sh. Deepak Khanna,
S/o Sh. B.N. Khanna,
R/o Flat No. UG4, Plot No. 193,
Sector-6, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Through: Mazdoor Vikas Samiti (Regd),
18/50, Basant Nagar Kishan Ganj, Delhi-07.
.....Claimant/ Workman
Details of one immediate family member of claimant/ workman:
Name : Ms. Poonam Kapoor (Sister)
Mobile No. 9999780175
Details of Authorized Representatives of claimant/ workman:
Name: Sh. O.P. Tiwari, Umed Pal Singh and Shanti Varma.
Mobile no. 9312215884 & 9868512800
Email ID: [email protected]
VERSUS
1. M/s Janki Prasad Motors,
4E/5, Jhandewalan Extention,
New Delhi-110055.
2. M/s Janki Prasad Motors,
B-1/30, Model Town-2, Delhi-110009.
......Managements
Details of the Authorized Representative of managements:
Name: Sh. Vikas Bhatia
Mobile no. 9811379676
E mail ID: [email protected]
Digitally
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) signed by
POOJA
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 1 of 15
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:41:37
+0530
Date of Filing : 24.03.2015
Date of Award : 28.06.2025
AWARD
1. The claimant/workman has filed the present case as a Direct
Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 alleging illegal termination and seeking
reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Facts as per the statement of claim
2. Briefly stated, it has been asserted that the claimant/workman
was working with the management since 04.05.1983 as
mechanic with his last drawn salary being ₹15,000/- per
month without any complaints on charges against him.
3. It has been further asserted that the management was not
providing the claimant/workman benefits like paid leave, leave
card, attendance card, salary slip, overtime, ESI card, PF etc.,
and when he orally demanded the same, the management
adopted anti-labour policies, paid his salary against plain
vouchers /registers and illegally terminated his services on
30.09.2014 without payment of his earned wages from
01.09.2014 to 30.09.2014 and other dues.
4. It has been further asserted that the services of the claimant/
workman were terminated without any notice or notice pay,
payment of retrenchment compensation, payment of
outstanding wages and without any chargesheet or inquiry in
violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15)
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. Digitally
signed by
Page No. 2 of 15
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:41:43
+0530
5. It has been further asserted that the claimant/workman sent a
demand letter dated 14.10.2014 to the management seeking
reinstatement and payment of outstanding dues but the
management deliberately did not receive it, and it was
returned.
6. It has been further asserted that the management did not
reinstate the claimant/workman despite intervention of the
Labour Inspector upon his complaint dated 31.10.2014, rather
the management informed that due to MCD notice dated
01.09.2014, the work was closed but they did not produce any
record. It has been further asserted that the work of the
management was continuing and it had engaged another
employee in place of the claimant /workman.
7. It has been further asserted that the claimant/workman filed a
claim before the Conciliation Officer dated 01.12.2014 but the
conciliation proceedings failed. It has also been asserted that
the claimant/workman is unemployed since the termination of
his services as he did not succeed in finding any job despite
best efforts and is facing financial hardship. Hence the present
claim seeking reinstatement with full back wages and all
consequential benefits.
Facts as per the written statement
8. In its written statement, the management raised various
preliminary objections including as to there being no employer
employee relationship between the parties and as to the
claimant not being covered under the definition of workman
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15)
Digitally
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. signed by Page No. 3 of 15
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:41:51
+0530
defined under Section 2 (s).
9. The management also asserted that there was no industrial
dispute or cause of action as there was no employer employee
relationship between the parties and there was no termination.
The management also raised preliminary objections as to the
workman not having proved that he had completed 240 days
with the management. It has been asserted that the claim had
been filed to harass the management and extort money.
10. On merits, the management denied all the averments made in
the statement of claim. The management also stated that the
proprietor of the management had visited the office of the
Assistant Labour Commissioner and had informed that he had
no concern with claimant/workman and had never terminated
his services.
Facts as per rejoinder
11. In the rejoinder, the claimant/ workman denied all the
averments made in the written statement and reiterated the
contents of his statement of claim.
Issues
12. The following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide
order dated 08.09.2015 :
1. Whether there was a relationship of employer and
employee between management and claimant? OPW
2.Whether the claimant worked with the management for
240 continuously in the preceding year? OPW
3. Whether the termination of services of the claimant on
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) Digitally
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. signed by
POOJA Page No. 4 of 15
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:41:58
+0530
30.09.14 is illegal and unjustified? OPW
4. Relief.
Workman Evidence
13. The claimant/workman tendered his evidence affidavit i.e.
Ex.WW-1/A relying upon the following documents i.e.
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of demand notice Ex. WW1/1 &
dated 14.10.2014 with copy Ex.WW1/2
of postal receipt respectively (OSR)
2. Copy of envelop received Ex.WW1/3 (OSR)
back unserved
3. Copy of the complaint dt. Ex.WW1/4 (OSR)
31.10.14 filed by the
workman before ALC
4. Copy of statement of claim Ex.WW1/5 (OSR)
filed before Conciliation
Officer
5. PAN card letter Ex.WW1/6 (OSR)
6. Copy of attendance register Ex.WW1/7 (OSR)
for the month of March,
2011
7. Copy of premium receipt dt. Ex.WW1/8 (OSR)
28.04.07
8. Copy of premium receipt dt. Ex.WW1/9 (OSR)
04.05.07
9. Inland letter card for the Ex.WW1/10
month of February, 2010 (OSR)
10. Copy in land letter card for Ex.WW1/11
the month of February 2008 (OSR)
11. Copy of policy receipt dt. Ex.WW1/12
21.03.01 (OSR)
12. Copy of domestic servant/ Mark W1 (colly)
employee verification
13. Copy of certificate issued by Mark W2
management dt. 04.05.88
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15)
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. Digitally Page No. 5 of 15
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:42:04
+0530
14. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the management.
15. WW-2 HC Suresh Kumar, being a summoned witness,
produced the Servant verification register for the year 2013
testifying that vide no. 120/SV/13 the verification of the
Workman Deepak Khanna was done i.e. Ex.WW2/1 and
testified that he did not know by whom the verification was
done. He admitted that the register which he had brought was
incomplete and that it had not been mentioned in the Register
as to where Deepak Khanna was employed. He also testified
that the application of the firm who had sought the verification
of the servant, has been sent to SSP, Ghaziabad. He was not
cross-examined on behalf of management despite opportunity.
Management Evidence
16. The management examined MW1 Mr. Yugal Gupta, who
tendered his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex. MW1/A. He was duly
cross-examined on behalf of the claimant/ workman wherein
inter-alia, the documents already Mark W2, Ex.WW1/1 and
Ex.WW1/3 were put to him.
17. Final arguments were then advanced by the Ld Authorized
Representatives of the parties which have been carefully
considered along with the evidence on record and after careful
consideration of the same, the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no. 1. Whether there was a relationship of
employer and employee between management and
claimant? OPW, and
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) POOJA
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. AGGARWAL Page No. 6 of 15Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.06.28
15:42:15 +0530
Issue no. 2.Whether the claimant worked with the
management for 240 continuously in the preceding
year? OPW
18. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the workman as
it is a settled proposition of law that a plea is to be proved by
the party who has set up the same. (Ref: the judgment of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Automobile Association of Upper
India v. P.O. Labour Court II, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 456).
19. In his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex.WW1/A, the claimant/
workman has testified that he had been working with the
management as Mechanic since 04.05.1983, whereas MW1
has categorically testified in his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex
MW1/A, that the claimant/ workman had never been appointed
by the management, which had no employees as they used to
hire persons on daily wages and pay the wages on the same
day.
20. With there being no admission of employer-employee
relationship between the parties, it was for the claimant/
workman to prove the same, since it is settled proposition of
law that in cases wherein the management denies the existence
of employer-employee relationship, the burden of proving the
existence of such relationship primarily rests upon the person
asserting the same. It is for the person asserting himself to be
an employee of the management, to discharge the initial
burden by leading positive evidence to show himself to be an
employee of the management and it is only thereafter that the
onus would shift to the management to counter the same. It is
not for the management to prove that the claimant is not its
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) Digitally
signed by
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 7 of 15
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:42:23
+0530
employee.
21. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Babu Ram Vs Govt. of NCT
of Delhi & Anr., (247 (2018) DLT 596), wherein it has been
observed that:
“It is well settled principle of law that the person, who sets up a
plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the
burden would be upon him. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd.
V. State of T.N. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 514 has approved the
judgment of Kerala and Calcutta High Court, where the plea of
the workman that he was employee of the company was denied
by the company and it was held that it was not for the company
to prove that he was not an employee. Para 48 to 50 of the said
judgment reads as under :
“48.In N.C. John v. Secy., Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and
Commercial Establishment Workers’ Union & Ors,
(1973 Lab IC 398) the Kerala High Court held :
The burden of proof being on the workmen to
establish the employer employee relationship an
adverse inference cannot be drawn against the
employer that if he were to produce books of
accounts they would have proved employer
employee relationship.
49.In Swapan Das Gupta & Ors. v. The First Labour
Court of W.B. (1976 Lab IC 202 (Cal)) it has been held :
Where a person asserts that he was a workman of
the company and it is denied by the company, it is
for him to prove the fact. It is not for the company
to prove that he was not an employee of the
company but of some other person.
50.The question whether the relationship between the
parties is one of employer and employee is a pure
question of fact and ordinarily the High Court while
exercising its power of judicial review shall not interfere
therewith unless the finding is manifestly or obviously
erroneous or perverse.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. In respect of the degree of proof, it is the cumulative effect of
the material before the Court which is to be considered as was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanpur Electricity
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) Digitally
signed by
POOJA
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 8 of 15
2025.06.28
15:42:30
+0530
Supply Co. Ltd. Vs Shamim Mirza, ((2009) 1 SCC 20), as
under:
“20. It is trite that the burden to prove that a claimant was in
the employment of a particular management, primarily lies on
the person who claims to be so but the degree of proof, so
required, varies from case to case. It is neither feasible nor
advisable to lay down an abstract rule to determine the
employer-employee relationship. It is essentially a question of
fact to be determined by having regard to the cumulative effect
of the entire material placed before the adjudicatory forum by
the claimant and the management.”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. The claimant/workman can discharge such burden either by
leading direct evidence in the form of appointment letter or
written agreement or by circumstantial evidence in the nature
of attendance register, salary register, leave records, deposit of
PF contribution, ESIC etc. and or even by examination of co-
workers. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Automobile
Association Upper India v. P.O. Labour Court-II & Anr., ( 130
(2006) DLT 160), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has
held that :
“Engagement and appointment of the workman in service can be
established either by direct evidence like existence and
production of appointment letter or written agreement, or by
circumstantial evidence of incidental or ancillary records, in
nature of attendance register, salary register, leave records,
deposit of PF contribution, ESI etc. or even by examination of co-
worker who may depose before the court that the workman was
working with the management”.
(Emphasis supplied)
24. In the present case, neither any direct evidence in the form of
any document like appointment letter or written agreement nor
any circumstantial evidence of incidental or ancillary records
in the nature of attendance register of the management etc. has
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) Digitally
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. signed by
POOJA
Page No. 9 of 15
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:42:38
+0530
been placed on record by the claimant/workman to prove the
existence of relationship of employee-employer between him
and management. Rather, in his cross-examination, the
claimant/workman has admitted that he had not filed the
documents like appointment letter, ESI Card, PF slip,
attendance register etc. to show that he had started working
with the management since 04.05.1983 as Mechanic.
25. Though the claimant/workman has relied upon the document
Ex.WW1/7 as an attendance register, he admitted during his
cross-examination that the document Ex.WW1/7 was only one
page of the register and that he had torn the same from the
attendance register maintained by the management.
26. However, perusal of Ex.WW1/7 reveals that it does not bear
the name of the management, nor does it bear any signatures,
and thus, there is nothing on Ex.WW1/7 to conclude that the
same pertains to the management in any manner.
27. That being so, it was for the claimant/workman to lead further
evidence to establish the link between Ex.WW1/7 and the
management. It is duly noted that the claimant/workman has
testified in his cross-examination to the effect that the original
attendance register was with the management, despite which
for reasons best known to him, he did not seek production of
the original attendance register from the management nor put
any explanation for such omission. This warrants an adverse
inference to be drawn against him that the steps were not so
taken, as the said document was not part of any attendance
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15)
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. Digitally
signed by Page No. 10 of 15
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:42:45
+0530
register being maintained by the management. That being so,
Ex.WW1/7 does not assist the claimant/workman to prove the
existence of any employer-employee relationship between the
parties.
28. The claimant/ workman has, inter-alia, also relied upon the
document Mark W2, in support of his claim of employment
with the management and during the course of arguments, it
has been argued on his behalf that the signatures on Mark W2
had been admitted by the MW1, hence, the document stood
proved. On the other hand, AR for the management argued that
the mere admission of the signatures does not amount to proof
of a document.
29. In respect of this argument, it is noted that Mark W2 is a mere
photocopy and as the original of Mark W2 has not been
produced, it remains inadmissible and cannot be looked into
even more so as the workman has not explained as to why the
best evidence, i.e. the original document has not been
produced. Be that as it may, even if the document could have
been considered, it would be noted that though during his
cross-examination, MW1 had initially identified the signatures
on Mark W2 to be those of his father, he went on to testify that
he was not sure and thus, it cannot be said that there is any
unequivocal admission of signatures on Mark W2. Hence, the
argument of the claimant/workman is devoid of merits.
30. The workman has also relied upon a letter issued by the
Income Tax PAN Services Unit i.e. Ex.WW1/6; premium
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15)
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. Digitally
signed by Page No. 11 of 15
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:42:51
+0530
receipts i.e. Ex.WW1/8, Ex.WW1/9 and Ex.WW1/12 as well
as the inland letter card for February 2010 and February 2008
i.e. Ex.WW1/10 and Ex.WW1/11, to contend that these
documents had been issued at the address of the management,
which proved his employment with the management.
31. However, the contention of the claimant/workman is devoid of
merits in as much as though admittedly, the name of the
management is reflected on the documents i.e. Ex WW1/6, Ex
WW1/10 and Ex WW1/11, while the address of the
management has been mentioned on the documents i.e. Ex
WW1/8 and Ex WW1/9, none of these documents describe the
claimant/workman to be an employee of the management. The
mere mention of the name or even address of the management
in any postal communication, by itself, without any further
evidence to prove the factum of employment of the claimant/
workman with management, is not sufficient to conclude that
the existence of the employer-employee relationship between
the parties.
32. The claimant/workman has also relied upon the document
Mark W1, purportedly signed by the management, yet, for
reasons best known to him, he did not even put the same to
MW1 during his cross-examination, in the absence of which
there is no admission by the management that it had indeed
made any such application nor the application Mark W1 was
proved by the claimant/workman through any positive
evidence in the court as the original of the document Mark W1
was never produced in the court. Though, in his cross-
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) Digitally
signed by
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. POOJA Page No. 12 of 15
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:42:58
+0530
examination, the claimant/workman testified that the original
of Mark W1 was in the possession of the police, and WW2
testified that the original application had been sent to SSP
Ghaziabad, for reasons best known to him, he did not examine
any witness from the office of SSP Ghaziabad to prove the
same nor the original application has been brought on record.
Thus, in the absence of the original document having been
produced, the document Mark W1 remains inadmissible and
cannot be looked into.
33. The other documents relied upon by the claimant/workman are
in the nature of his demand letter, postal receipt, returned
envelop, copy of complaint dated 31.10.2014 filed by him and
copy of his statement of claim before ALC i.e. Ex WW1/1 to
Ex. WW1/5, none of which is sufficient to show that the
claimant/workman was on the rolls of the management nor
they indicate that he was being paid any salary by them and
these documents are thus insufficient to discharge the onus
regarding existence of the employer-employee relationship.
34. Thus, the only evidence in support of the plea of employment
of the claimant/workman with the management is his self
serving affidavit and nothing beyond the same, which is
wholly insufficient to discharge the burden of proof cast upon
the claimant /workman to prove his relationship as an
employee of the management. Strength for this interpretation
is drawn from the judgment of Babu Ram vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi (supra), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi that:
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) Digitally
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. signed by Page No. 13 of 15
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:43:04
+0530
“The petitioner has placed on record his self supporting
affidavit, demand notice and postal receipts in evidence
which does not prove his relationship with the respondent
as employee and employer.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the claimant/
workman has failed discharge the onus cast upon him and has
failed to prove the existence of employer-employee
relationship between the parties and consequently, the question
of the claimant/workman being an employee of the
management for 240 days preceding his alleged termination
does not arise. Issue no. 1 and 2 are accordingly decided
against the claimant/workman and in favour of the
management.
Issue no. 3. Whether the termination of services of the
claimant on 30.09.14 is illegal and unjustified? OPW
36. The onus to prove this issue was also on the
claimant/workman. However, with him having failed to prove
the very factum of his employment with the management, the
question of his services having been terminated by the
management or as to such termination being illegal and/or
unjustifiable does not arise. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided
against the claimant/ workman and in favour of the
management.
Issue no. 4. Relief.
37. In view of the above discussion and findings on issue no. 1 to
3, it is held that the claimant/ workman has failed to prove
existence of employer-employee relationship between the
Digitally
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15) signed by
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page No. 14 of 15
POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:43:13
+0530
parties and consequently, he has failed to prove illegal and/or
unjustifiable termination of his services by the managements.
Hence, he is not entitled to any relief and the claim is
dismissed.
38. Copy of Award be sent to the concerned department through
proper channels as per rules.
39. File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary
compliance. Digitally
signed by
Announced in the Open Court POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
today on 28th June 2025 2025.06.28
15:43:19
+0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-01
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi (sa)
LC No. 2360/16 (Old DID No.12/15)
Deepak Khanna vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr. Page No. 15 of 15