Delhi District Court
Kishan vs M/S Sage Publications Ltd on 29 May, 2025
DLCT130116802016
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER LABOUR COURT-06, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURT, D.D.U. MARG, NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 9236/2016
Date of Institution 07.03.2017
Date of Award 29.05.2025
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Kishan S/o Late Sh Maharaj Singh, age-30 years, (Mobile
No.-9810351102), R/o H.No-100, Gali No-1, Mohan Baba Nagar,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044,
Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd), 170, Bal
Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi
AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF
1) M/s Sage Publications Ltd., Post Beg No.-7, B-1/I-1, Mohan Co-
operative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New
Delhi-110014
2) M/s Rout Facility Service, 30, Basement, National Park, Near
Vikram Hotel, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024 (deleted from
the array of parties vide order dated 05.02.2020)
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 1 of 28
AWAR D
1.
Vide this award, I shall decide the present reference
bearing no. F.24 (447)/Lab./SD/2016/20236 dated 08.09.2016 sent
to this court by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, South District,
Labour Department, NCT of Delhi, with the following terms of the
reference:-
“Whether there exists employer-employee
relationship between the management and Sh.
Kishan S/o Late Sh. Maharaj Singh, age-30 years,
(Mobile No.-9810351102) and if yes, whether his
services have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?”
1.1 Statement of claim was filed by the workman.
CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
2. It is stated by the workman that he was employed with
the management w.e.f. October, 2007 as Safai Karamchari on the
last drawn wages of Rs.9200/- per month without giving anyLIR No.9236/2016
Page 2 of 28
reasons for the management to complain against him. The
workman had a clear service record and never got any show cause
notice or received any complaints from the management with
regard to his working. However, the management never provided
the workman with leave book, overtime card, traveling allowance,
HRA, increment in salary, bonus, earned leaves, casual leaves etc.
It is further stated that the workman was employed with the
management no.1 i.e. Sage Communications Ltd. however, he does
not know if he has been shown to work under a contractor and to
avoid any difficulty, the workman has arraigned the contractor as
management no.2 (M/s Rout Facility Services). The workman
further reiterated that he was working with the management no.1
under the instruction of management no.1 and on 01.02.2016
without giving any show cause notice, the services of the workman
were terminated without paying earned wages from 01.01.2016 to
31.01.2016. Hence, it is submitted that the management no.1
contravened the provisions of Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act
and hence, a demand letter dated 01.02.2016 was sent to the
management. However, the management refused to reinstate the
workman and also did not pay the unpaid wages.
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 3 of 28
2.1 Thereafter, the workman approached the concerned
Labour Commissioner through Union and despite efforts of the
Labour Commissioner to conciliate the matter, the management
refused to reinstate the workman and on failure of the conciliation
proceedings, the present reference was sent to this court for
adjudication.
2.2 Notice of the reference was issued to the management
who appeared and filed its written statement.
3. On service of notice of the reference, the management
no.1 appeared and some efforts of settlement were made but no
settlement was arrived at. Thereafter, issues were framed vide order
dated 01.11.2018 which read as under:-
i) As per terms of reference? OPW
ii) Relief.
3.1 The matter was posted for workman’s evidence and
for disposal of an application u/s 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act
filed by the management no.1 which was disposed of vide order
dated 04.07.2019 vide which contractor M/s Rout Facility Services
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 4 of 28
was ordered to be impleaded as a necessary party and the workman
was directed to amend his claim and to file amended memo of
parties. Thereafter, on filing of the amended statement of claim
alongwith amended memo of parties, notice was issued to the
management no. 2 to file written statement and management no. 2
remained unserved, despite various efforts made and thus, vide
order dated 05.02.2020 on account of repeated failure of the
workman to provide for whereabouts of the management no. 2, the
management no. 2 was deleted from the array of parties and matter
was posted for workman’s evidence.
REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT
4. After the impleadment of the management no. 2,
written statement was filed by the management no. 1 and
management no. 1 denied each and every submissions made in the
claim filed by the claimant and it was stated in the preliminary
submission that the management is an independent professional
publisher and follows defined procedure before engaging its
regular employees and some of the facilities are outsourced such as
floor cleaning, cleaning of doors and window panes, dusting,
washroom toilets and washroom floor cleaning etc. The said
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 5 of 28
services were hired through an independent contractor i.e. M/s
Rout Facility Services and as the management only employed six
contract employees through only one independent contractor i.e.
M/s Rout Facility Services, it was not required to register itself as
an principal employer under Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA). Similarly, the contractor i.e. M/s
Rout Facility Services was also not required to take a license under
Section 14(B) of the Contract Labour Act, 1970.
4.1 It was further stated that the management no. 1 entered
into an agreement with contractor i.e. M/s Rout Facility Services
for providing facility management for an initial period of 12
months dated 01.04.2013 which was further extended for another
24 months till 31.07.2016. Thus, it is stated that the contractor was
responsible for carrying out all house-keeping requirements of the
management no. 1 and was also responsible primarily and solely
for compliance of all provisions for persons deployed under the
contract/agreement with the management no. 1 including payment
of minimum wages etc.
4.2 The management no. 1 further stated that the claimant
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 6 of 28
and others who were employed by the contractor were being paid
wages by the said contractor and the management no. 1 had no say
or involvement in the hiring or firing of the said workman and
there was no direct employee – employer relationship of the
workman with management no. 1 as indisputably the workman was
a direct employee of the contractor i.e. M/s Rout Facility Services.
4.3 It is further stated that the contractor citing certain
business exigency itself withdrew from providing the facilities to
the management w.e.f. 31.01.2016 and the workman had no
employer – employee relationship with management no. 1 even
before the appropriate authority under the Minimum Wages Act
and under Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, only management
no. 1 was noticed and the workman never impleaded its contractor
i.e. M/s Rout Facility Services and the management no. 1 duly
entered into appearance and replied on dated 11.02.2016 informing
the authority under Minimum Wages Act that the workman was not
its employee but was the employee of the contractor i.e. M/s Rout
Facility Services. On efforts being made by management no. 1, the
contractor i.e. M/s Rout Facility Services appeared before the
Conciliation Officer on 01.06.2016 and tried to file their written
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 7 of 28
submission wherein it was categorically admitted by M/s Rout
Facility Services that the workman and the other persons namely
Parvesh, Jeetu, Kishan, Naresh, Harish Kumar and Parmod were its
employees. It was further stated by the contractor i.e. M/s Rout
Facility Services that the claimant and the others as mentioned
above have no direct employee employer relationship with the
management no. 1. However, it is further stated by the
management no. 1 that the concerned authority refused to either
implead the contractor or to take their written submissions dated
31.05.2016 of the contractor on record and accordingly, the
management no. 1 was constrained to write a letter dated
21.07.2016 to the Deputy Labour Commissioner South regarding
non-acceptance of reply which was given by the contractor and
hence, the present claim against the management no. 1 is
concocted, misguided and malicious.
4.4 In the preliminary objections, it has been stated that
the reference is bad and without impleading the contractor i.e. M/s
Rout Facility Services, the present claim cannot be adjudicated as
there is no direct employee – employer relationship between the
workman and the management no. 1. It is again reiterated that the
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 8 of 28
workman was always an employee of the contractor i.e. M/s Rout
Facility Services and the management no. 1 never directly
employed the workman. Thus, no industrial dispute as
contemplated under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 exists between the workman and the management no. 1. It is
denied that the workman was working with the management no. 1
since October, 2007 on the post of Safai Karamchari or that his last
drawn wages were Rs. 9200/- per month. The employer –
employee relationship has been again denied in the para-wise reply.
It has further been reiterated that since there is no employee
employer relationship between the workman and management no.
1, the management no. 1 was legally not required to provide any
legal facilities including leave book, overtime card, traveling
allowance, HRA, increment, bonus etc. to the workman. All other
claim of the workman with regard to termination of the services
etc. have been denied.
REJOINDER
5. The workman filed rejoinder to the written statement
of the management no.1 and denied the averments made in the
written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the facts of the
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 9 of 28
statement of claim as correct and prayed that an award may be
passed in his favour in terms of the prayer made by him in the
statement of claim.
ISSUES
6. As issues had already been framed vide order dated
01.11.2018, matter was listed for workman’s evidence.
WORKMAN’S EVIDENCE
7. The workman appeared in the witness box as the sole
witness and tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex. WW1/A bearing
his signatures at point A & B and has relied upon the ten
documents which are Ex.WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/9 and Mark A which
are as under:-
i) Ex. WW1/1 is a complaint to the Labour Commissioner against
the management no.1 i.e. Sage Publications Ltd;
ii) Ex. WW1/2 is a reply received by the Labour Union from the
office of Labour Commissioner with regard to the original
complaint dated 03.02.2016;
iii) Ex. WW1/3 is the demand notice dated 01.02.2016 issued to the
management no.1;
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 10 of 28
iv)Ex. WW1/4 is a postal receipt;
v) Ex. WW1/6 is again a complaint/claim filed in the office of
Deputy Labour Commissioner against the management no.1;
vi) Ex. WW1/7 is the notice to the management no.2 M/s Rout
Facility Services (since deleted by the Ld. Predecessor of this court
vide order dated 05.02.2020).
vii) Ex. WW1/8 is another a complaint against the
managementno.1 to the contractor of M/s Rout Facility Services
for remittance of PF dues and allotment of PF/UAN account of five
employees which includes the name of the present workman.
viii) Ex. WW1/9 is a compliance report of the complaint with
regard to PF Code which was sent to the General Secretary of the
Trade Union by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-02,
RO Delhi, East and
ix) Mark A is the Communication to the management no.1 for
compliance with regard to Employees Provident Fund Provisions
as per Para 30 (3) and Para 36 (B) of EPF & NP Act & Scheme
1952.
7.1 He was cross-examined at length and thereafter,
workman’s evidence was closed vide order dated 18.05.2023 on the
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 11 of 28
statement of workman and the matter was posted for management’s
evidence.
MANAGEMENTS’ EVIDENCE
8. In ME, Sh. Nagesh Gulati, working as Deputy
Manager with the management examined as MW1 who tendered
his affidavit Ex. MW1/A bearing his signature at point A and B and
relied upon the following documents:-
i) Copy of authorization letter dated 01.08.2023 as Ex MW1/1
(original placed in case bearing LIR no. 9234/16 titled Parvesh Vs.
M/s Sage Publications);
ii) Agreement entered between management and service provider
dated 01.08.2014 as Mark A;
iii) Copy of letter dated 31.01.2016 vide which service provider
withdrew from providing facility to management as Mark B (colly)
(running into two pages);
iv) Copy of complaint filed by the claimant as Ex MW1/2. (OSR);
v) Copy of reply dated 04.05.2016 of the management as Ex
MW1/3. (OSR);
vi) Copy of reply dated 10.08.2016 prepared by proprietor of
service provider as Ex MW1/4. (OSR);
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 12 of 28
vii) Copy of reply dated 21.07.2016 filed by management as Ex.
MW1/5 (OSR) and
viii) Copy of reply dated 10.08.2016 filed by management as Mark
D.8.1 Thereafter he was cross-examined at length and vide
statement of AR of management made on 06.02.2025, ME was
closed and matter was posted for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
9. Final arguments were advanced by both the parties.
Citations were also filed on behalf of the management. Entire
material on record was carefully perused and the documents filed
by the workman and management were taken into consideration.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
10. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:- As per terms of reference?OPW
The reference reads as under:-
“Whether there exists employer-employee
relationship between the management and Sh.
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 13 of 28
Kishan S/o Late Sh. Maharaj Singh, age-30 years,
(Mobile No.-9810351102) and if yes, whether his
services have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?”
10.1 The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman.
In order to decide this issue, we can divide this issue in two parts
(i) whether there exists employer-employee relationship between
the management and the workman & (ii) if yes, whether the
services of the workman have been terminated illegally and
unjustifiably by the management and the relief if at all, is to be
granted to the workman.
10.2 Coming to the first part of this issue with regard to
existence of employer-employee relationship; the workman alleges
that he was an employee of the management no.1 w.e.f. October,
2007 with last drawn wages of Rs.9200/- per month and on
01.02.2016, his services were terminated by the management after
making him sign some blank pages and blank vouchers without
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 14 of 28
paying him his due wages for the period 01.01.2016 till
31.01.2016.
10.3 In this regard, the reliance has been placed by the
workman upon the document Ex. WW1/1 which is a complaint to
the Labour Commissioner only against the management no.1 i.e.
Sage Publications Ltd. In the said complaint, the contents of the
complaint have been reiterated in the statement of claim. Ex.
WW1/2 is again a reply received by the Labour Union from the
office of Labour Commissioner with regard to the original
complaint dated 03.02.2016. Ex. WW1/3 is the demand notice
dated 01.02.2016 issued to the management no.1 and Ex. WW1/4
is a postal receipt. There is no Ex. WW1/5. Ex. WW1/6 is again a
complaint filed in the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner
against the management no.1. Ex. WW1/7 is the notice to the
management no.2 M/s Rout Facility Services (since deleted by the
Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 05.02.2020). In the
said notice dated 21.08.2021, which is addressed to the Director
M/s Rout Facility Services and to the Managing Director of the
management no.1 by the workman. It is stated that M/s Rout
Facility Services was a contractor, who had engaged the services of
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 15 of 28
the workman and the management no.1 was the principal employer.
The said letter is a request to both M/s Rout Facility Services and
Sage Publications Ltd. (management no.1) to provide for Provident
Fund Account UN number. Ex. WW1/8 is another a complaint
against the management no.1 to the contractor of M/s Rout Facility
Services for remittance of PF dues and allotment of PF/UAN
account of five employees which includes the name of the present
workman. In the said letter, it has been clearly mentioned by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that M/s Rout Facility
Services being a contractor was responsible for carrying out and
complying with house-keeping requirements under
contract/agreement with M/s Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. i.e.
Management no.1 and thus, M/s Rout Facility Services being a
contractor was directed to provide the relevant records i.e.
employment details etc. rendered by the workman alongwith other
relevant details such as father’s name, date of joining, date of
leaving, Aadhar details, self-declaration of the employees, mobile
numbers linked with UAN and documentary proof in support to
M/s Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Mark A is the
Communication to the management no.1 for compliance with
regard to Employees Provident Fund Provisions as per Para 30 (3)
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 16 of 28
and Para 36 (B) of EPF & NP Act & Scheme 1952. In this regard,
the management no.1 was directed to pay an amount of
Rs.13,22,647/- towards contribution of Provident Fund of the
workman including other employees who were employees of M/s
Rout Facility Services (Contractor) who was providing services to
the management no.1. Ex. WW1/9 is thereafter, a compliance
report of the complaint with regard to PF Code which was sent to
the General Secretary of the Trade Union by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner-02, RO Delhi, East.
10.4 Thus, a clear perusal of all the documents relied upon
by the workman to show that there existed no employer-employee
relationship between the management no.1 i.e. M/s Sage
Publications Ltd. It is also not denied that M/s Rout Facility
Services which was also arraigned as the management no.2 and
thereafter, deleted by the orders of this court was a contractor who
employed the workman for providing house-keeping services etc.
to the management no.1. In order to show that the management
no.1 was the principal employer, the workman has merely stated
that since the management no.1 was under a duty to pay/contribute
the provident fund amount of the workmen and since the workmen
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 17 of 28
were working in the premises of the management no.1, the
management no.1 be considered as the principal employer.
10.5 However, there is clear evidence on record to show
that the services of the workmen were employed by the M/s Rout
Facility Services which entered into an agreement with the
management no.1 dated 01.08.2014 which is Mark A and further
withdrew from providing facility to the management no.1 vide
letter dated 31.01.2016 which is Mark B collectively running into
two pages.
10.6 A perusal of Mark A and Mark B reveals that a
contract/agreement was entered into by the management no.1 with
M/s Rout Facility Services to provide various services and the
workmen were employed for providing those services by M/s Rout
Facility Services. In fact, even during the cross examination of the
workman when confronted with Ex. WW1/7 which is a
communication dated 21.08.2021, the workman denied the very
document which was relied upon while tendering his affidavit. The
workman stated that he is not aware as to why communication Ex.
WW1/7 was sent to the Director of M/s Rout Facility Services. The
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 18 of 28
workman further admitted that he has not placed on record any
document to show that he was employed by the management no.1
i.e. M/s Sage Publications Ltd. Voluntarily, he stated that no
appointment letter was ever issued to him or any other documents
were issued to him by the management no.1, even though, he
denied the suggestion that he was an employee of the contractor
namely M/s Rout Facility Services. However, he admitted that he
has not placed on record any document to show that he was ever
paid any salary by the management no.1 i.e. M/s Sage Publications
Ltd. and not by M/s Rout Facility Services i.e. contractor.
10.7 Thus, the cross examination of the workman coupled
with the communication Ex. WW1/7 which is a document relied
upon by the workman himself clearly show that the workman
always knew that he was primarily an employee of the contractor
i.e. M/s M/s Rout Facility Services and was not employed by M/s
Sage Publications Ltd.
10.8 Further credence to this fact is lent by the cross
examination of the MW1 by the Ld. AR for the workman wherein
he stated that the contract with M/s Rout Facility Services expired
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 19 of 28
in 2016 and after that, no manpower is being supplied by the said
contractor and the letter terminating the contract which is Mark B
was also placed on record. With regard to deposition of PF, it has
been stated that PF was deposited by the management no.1 on
account of receiving notice from the EPFO department and to
avoid litigation and it was denied that the services of the workman
were terminated by the management no.1. Thus, it is clear that the
workman has not been able to establish that an employer-employee
relationship existed between the management no.1 and the
workman as he was employed by the contractor i.e. M/s Rout
Facility Services and ESI or PF contribution made by the
management no.1 would not be relevant or conclusive to hold that
the management no.1 was the principal employer. This is for the
reason under Provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 where the principal employer is under an
obligation to ensure that ESI and PF contribution are made by the
contractor and failure on the part of the contractor, the liability
shall shift on the principal employer as it shifted to the
management no.1 herein. Thus, mere contribution of provident
fund of the workman would not make the management no.1 as the
principal employer of the workman.
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 20 of 28
10.9 The workman has not been able to show that the
attendance was marked by the management no.1 or any other
record including the salary or bills etc. of the workman every
month were being paid by the management no.1. There is nothing
on record to show that the management no.1 was paying wages to
the workman individually or were marking their attendance and
thus, there is no master-servant relationship between the workman
and the management no.1. In fact, the workman in his cross
examination has admitted that he has not placed on record any
document to show that he was ever paid any salary by the
management no.1 i.e. M/s Sage Publications Ltd.
10.10 It is an admitted fact that the workman was never
issued any appointment letter by the management no.1 at any point
of time ever since the his date of his appointment. The workman
has not been able to produce any salary slips of the management
no.1 to prove that the management no.1 paid his salary from the
date of his appointment and till the date of his termination. On
contrary as discussed above, there is Ex. WW1/7 wherein the
workman himself states that he was being employed by the
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 21 of 28
contractor i.e. M/s Rout Facility Services.
10.11 In order to lend credence to existence of a contract
between the management no.1 and M/s Rout Facility Services, the
management no.1 has placed on record the contract as Mark A and
the termination of contract as Mark B. The management no.1 had
outsourced various house-keeping services to M/s Rout Facility
Services and in this regard, as per contract, it was to be effected
from 01.08.2014 till 31.07.2016. The scope of work was also
mentioned in the said contract and it was duly signed by M/s Rout
Facility Services i.e. the Contractor and M/s Sage Publications
India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. management no.1. This continuation of the said
contractor is further shown by Mark B which was sent by the
contractor to the management no.1.
10.12 It is not the case of the workman that the agreement
Mark A is a sham or a bogus agreement i.e. whether it is a device to
avoid legal obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
This has not been alleged or argued. The existence of agreement
Mark A has not been disputed and no questions with regard to the
genuineness of the same have been put to the management’s
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 22 of 28
witness by the workman and thus, mere deposition of Provident
Fund by the management no.1 qua the workman and other
employees does not create a relationship of employer-employee
between the management and the petitioner/workman.
10.13 Section 2(f) of The Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is reproduced herein under:
“2(f) employee’ means any person who is employed for
wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in
connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets his
wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any
person,-
(i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with
the work of the establishment;
(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged
under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961) or under the standing
orders of the establishment;” (Emphasis Supplied)
The aforesaid definition does not create the
relationship of employer and employee under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and is meant for the limited purpose of The
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,LIR No.9236/2016
Page 23 of 28
1952. The contractor’s employees are deemed to be the employees
of the principal employer for the purposes of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act if they satisfy
the attributes as defined in Section 2(f) of the aforesaid Act.
10.14 Further, Section 6 of The Employees Provident Funds
a Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provide that the employer
shall remit the provident fund contribution in respect of the
employees employed by him directly or by or through a contractor.
Section 6 of the aforesaid Act is reproduced herein under:
“6. Contributions and matters which may be
provided for in Schemes. The contribution which
shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be
ten percent of the basic wages, dearness allowance
and retaining allowance, if any, for the time being
payable to each of the employees whether employed
by him directly or by or through a contractor, and the
employees’ contribution shall be equal to the
contribution payable by the employer in respect of
him and may, if any employee so desires, be an
amount exceeding ten percent of his basic wages,LIR No.9236/2016
Page 24 of 28
dearness allowance and retaining allowance if any,
subject to the condition that the employer shall not
be under an obligation to pay any contribution over
and above his contribution payable under this
section….” (Emphasis Supplied)10.15 Further, Para 30 of The Employees’ Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 is reproduced herein under:
“30. Payment of contributions. – (1) The employer
shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution
payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the
employer’s contribution) and also, on behalf of the
member employed by him directly or by or through a
contractor, the contribution payable by such member
(in this Scheme referred to as the member’s
contribution).
(2) In respect of employees employed by or through
a contractor, the contractor shall recover the
contribution payable by such employee (in this
Scheme referred to as the member’s contribution)
and shall pay to the principal employer the amountLIR No.9236/2016
Page 25 of 28
of member’s contribution so deducted together with
an equal amount of contribution (in this Scheme
referred to as the employer’s contribution) and also
administrative charges.
(3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal
employer to pay both the contribution payable by
himself in respect of the employees directly
employed by him and also in respect of the
employees employed by or through a contractor and
also administrative charges.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Para 30 of the aforesaid scheme clearly indicates that
it shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both
the contributions payable by himself in respect of employees
directly employed by him and also in respect of employees
employed by or through a contractor.
10.16 The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 and The Employees’ Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 cast the responsibility and statutory obligation on
the principal employer to remit the PF contributions even in respect
of contractor’s employees.
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 26 of 28
Mere remittance of the provident fund by the
management no. 1, i.e., the principal employer ipso facto does not
create any employer-employee relationship between the
management no. 1 and workman.
10.17 The failure on the part of the workman in producing
any document including appointment letter or any other document
of his engagement with the management no.1 for a continuous
period of 240 days dis-entitles him to be a workman of the
management no.1 u/s 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus,
it is held that there is no existence of employer-employee
relationship between the management and the workman and thus,
there is no question of his services being terminated illegally or
unjustifiably by the management no.1. Hence, this issue is decided
against the workman and in favour of the management.
RELIEF:-
11. In view of the findings of this court on aforesaid
reference/issue, it is held that the workman is not entitled to any
relief as claimed and claim of the workman stands rejected.
Reference stands answered and disposed off accordingly.
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 27 of 28
12. A attested copy of this award be sent to the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt/Area
concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned
to Record Room as per rules.
Pronounced in open court CHETNA Digitally signed by
CHETNA SINGH
on 29.05.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.05.29
16:47:15 +0530
(CHETNA SINGH)
PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-06
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
NEW DELHI.
LIR No.9236/2016
Page 28 of 28