Delhi District Court
Tasleem 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. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015)
CNR No. DLCT13-007186-2015
In the matter of:
Sh. Guddu,
S/o Mohd. Rizwan,
R/o 52/16, B-6, Gali No. 17,
Anand Parvat, New Delhi.
Through
Mazdoor Vikas Samiti (Regd),
18/50, Basant Nagar Kishan Ganj, Delhi-07.
.....Claimant/ Workman
Details of one immediate family member of claimant/ workman:
Not provided
Details of Authorized Representative 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.
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. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) signed by
POOJA
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 1 of 12
2025.06.28
15:35:53
+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 May 2000 as a
Painter with his last drawn salary being ₹17,000/- 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
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) Digitally
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr signed by
POOJA Page No. 2 of 12
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:36:02
+0530
violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
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 other
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
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) Digitally
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr signed by Page No. 3 of 12
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:36:09
+0530
employee relationship between the parties and as to the
claimant not being covered under the definition of workman
defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
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 objection 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
Digitally
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) signed by
POOJA
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 4 of 12
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:36:18
+0530
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 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 the Conciliation
Officer
5. Copy of attendance register Ex.WW1/6 (OSR)
for March, 2011
14. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the management.
Management Evidence
15. 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 Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/3
were put to him.
POOJA
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) AGGARWAL
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr Page No. 5 of 12
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.06.28
15:36:28 +0530
16. 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
Issue no. 2.Whether the claimant worked with the
management for 240 continuously in the preceding
year? OPW
17. 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).
18. In his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex.WW1/A, the claimant/
workman has testified that he had been working with the
management as painter since May 2000, 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 permanent or temporary workers
as they used to hire persons on daily wages and pay the wages
on the same day.
19. 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
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) POOJA
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr AGGARWAL Page No. 6 of 12
Digitally signed by
POOJA
AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.06.28
15:36:36 +0530
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
employee.
20. 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
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) POOJA
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr AGGARWAL Page No. 7 of 12
Digitally signed by
POOJA
AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.06.28
15:36:46 +0530
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)
21. In respect of the degree of proof, it is to be borne in mind that
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 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)
22. 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,LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) Digitally
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr signed by
POOJA
Page No. 8 of 12
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:36:57
+0530
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)
23. 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
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, he has
admitted that he had not filed the documents like appointment
letter, ESI Card, PF slip and attendance register, etc. to show
that he had started working with the management since May
2000.
24. In support of his claim of being an employee of the
management, though the claimant/workman has relied upon
the document Ex.WW1/6 as an attendance register, but the
document Ex WW1/6 is not a register but merely a single page
which does not even bear any signatures or rubber stamp of the
management, nor the management has admitted it to be its
document.
25. The complete register, of which Ex. WW1/6 was purportedly a
part of, has not been produced in the court by the claimant/
workman nor he took any steps to lead any further evidence to
prove any link between the said document and the
management. He also took no steps to summon any attendance
register from the management to prove the document i.e. Ex
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) Digitally
signed by
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 9 of 12
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:37:04
+0530
WW1/6, which omission warrants an adverse inference to be
drawn that the steps were not so taken, as the said document
was not part of any attendance register being maintained by
the management.
26. That being so, with there being no evidence on record to
conclude that the document Ex WW1/6 was a part of any
attendance register being maintained by the management, Ex.
WW1/6 does not assist the claimant/workman to prove the
existence of any employer-employee relationship between the
parties.
27. 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 as
well as 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 thus are insufficient to discharge the onus regarding
existence of the employer-employee relationship.
28. 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
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015)
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr POOJA Page No. 10 of 12
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.06.28
15:37:13 +0530
Delhi (supra), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi that:
“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)
29. 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
30. 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.
31. In view of the above discussion and findings on issue no. 1 to
Digitally
signed by
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015) POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 11 of 12
2025.06.28
15:37:20
+0530
3, it is held that the claimant/ workman has failed to prove
existence of employer-employee relationship between the
parties and has also 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.
32. Copy of Award be sent to the concerned department through
proper channels as per rules.
33. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
today i.e. 28th June 2025 POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.06.28
15:37:32
+0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-01
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi (sa)
LC No. 2361/16 (Old DID No.13/2015)
Guddu vs. M/s Janki Prasad Motors & Anr Page No. 12 of 12