- (1.) THIS order disposes of CR No.1776 of 2014 titled Resham vs. M/S Anand Udyog, Plot No.36 -A, Dabua -Pali Road, Near Octroi No.17, N.I.T, Faridabad, CR No.1779 of 2014 titled Sundri Devi vs. M/S Anand Udyog, Plot No.36 -A, Dabua -Pali Road, Near Octroi No.17, N.I.T, Faridabad and CR No.1780 of 2014 titled Sumantra vs. M/S Anand Udyog, Plot No.36 -A, Dabua -Pali Road, Near Octroi No.17, N.I.T, Faridabad. The facts are taken from CR No.1776 of 2014.
(2.) THIS is a revision petition against an interlocutory order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court -III, Faridabad. The workman's request was for permission to lead additional/further evidence examined through departmental witnesses to speak from the record available with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and the District Industries Centre, Faridabad to prove his case has been turned down and the Presiding Officer who has clearly misdirected himself, according to the learned counsel, by assuming without any basis and reasoning as follows: To quote - "So, obviously there are no documents in the office of Registrar of Companies, Delhi and in the office of Registration under Small Scale Industries, which helps the claimant to prove his relationship as employee with respondent, if any record is available same will be in ESI or in PF office but claimant has not summoned their record in his evidence to prove the relationship of employee and employer. So the present application is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs."
(3.) THIS observation, if not supported by any material on record duly dealt with in the preceding portion of the impugned order would plainly amount to ipse dixit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not the business of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court -III, Faridabad to have embarked on his own journey to assume that if there is any record it will be available with the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) or in the Provident Fund office (PF). It is the categorical statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner made at the Bar that it was his client's pleaded case in the demand notice itself that the petitioner was not registered, while working in the respondent -factory, to be a member of the Provident Fund or ESI. Where would then be evidence to source from those authorities as observed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the need to to procure link evidence from the ROC and the DIC. ROC was relevant source because the company had changed its name as alleged to avoid or deflect any liability, or so the petitioner thought, necessating summoning of witnesses with record of the employermanagement to help him prove his case. For these fallacious reasons, the application has unfortunately been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20th January, 2014 compelling the petitioner to approach this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to keep the subordinate Tribunal within the confines of its jurisdiction and to exercise it in accordance with law on the facts presented so that justice is not denied to him.;