SHRI PAPPU PATHAK Vs. M S BANSAL BROTHERS INDUSTRIES
LAWS(DLH)-2025-2-1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 03,2025

Shri Pappu Pathak Appellant
VERSUS
M S Bansal Brothers Industries Respondents

JUDGEMENT

GIRISH KATHPALIA,J. - (1.)These three writ petitions under Articles 226&227 of the Constitution of India deal with similar factual and legal matrix, so the same are taken up together for disposal. The petitioners have challenged Labour Court Awards dtd. 9/2/2024, whereby the References in respect of their alleged termination of services were answered against them and consequently their Statements of Claims were dismissed. Despite advance intimation, none appeared from respondent and after hearing learned counsel for petitioners, who took me through records, I found no reason to issue notice.
(2.)Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present petitions are as follows.
2.1 By way of orders dtd. 19/2/2018, the Government of NCT of Delhi sent to the Labour Court three separate References in the names of the petitioners to the effect as to whether their services had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the present respondent management, and if so, to what relief they are entitled.

2.2 The factual matrix set up by the petitioners in their respective statements of claim was as follows. The petitioners Pappu Pathak and Vinit Sharma were working as karigars with the respondent management for past 13 years while petitioner Sanjay Sharma was working as karigar with the respondent management for past 09 years. The last monthly wages drawn by the petitioners Pappu Pathak, Vinit Sharma and Sanjay Sharma were Rs.11,700.00, Rs.10,100.00 and Rs.9,200.00 respectively. Despite their hard work and sincerity, the petitioners were not granted legal facilities like appointment letter, earned leave, casual leave, leave pay, leave book and salary slip etc. On false assurances, the respondent management took signatures of all these petitioners on blank papers and when they insisted for being provided facilities to which they were entitled, the respondent management illegally terminated their services on 30/4/2017, without paying their wages for the months of March and April 2017. Despite their complaints to the labour authorities and their demand notices dtd. 1/6/2017, the respondent management did not reinstate their services and did not pay balance wages.

2.3 The respondent management filed written statements in each of those cases before the Labour Court, denying the contents of the statements of claims. In the written statements, the respondent management pleaded that Pappu Pathak as semi skilled worker, Vinit Sharma as helper and Sanjay Sharma also as helper joined service of the management respectively on 12/11/2016, 9/11/2016 and 11/11/2016 by way of appointment letters issued to each of them. The respondent management further pleaded that on 30/4/2017, all these workmen left their job at their own will and accord, without completing even 240 days of service. The respondent management denied having obtained signatures of any of the petitioners on blank papers and also denied that the workmen raised any demand or grievance.

2.4 The petitioners workmen filed rejoinders, denying the contents of the written statements and reaffirmed their claim contents.

2.5 On the basis of rival pleadings, the Labour Court originally framed issues as to whether the workmen left their job at their own will and accord or their services were terminated illegally/unjustifiably by the respondent management. Subsequently, the learned Labour Court framed an additional issue as to whether the workmen had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months of their alleged termination.

2.6 During trial, each of the petitioners appeared as their solitary witness while on behalf of the respondent management, their Supervisor appeared as its solitary witness. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court passed the awards, which are impugned in the present proceedings.

2.7 In the impugned awards, the Labour Court after analysis of rival pleadings and evidence arrived at the findings that the applications of the petitioners workmen seeking appointment and the appointment letters issued to them, coupled with the attendance and wage records adduced in evidence by the respondent management clearly established that the petitioners workmen had joined the service of the respondent management sometime in the month of November 2016 itself and that there is no evidence to show that any of the workmen worked with the management for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of their alleged termination. The learned Labour Court also placed reliance on a judicial precedent flowing from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that it is for the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year with the management. Having arrived at the findings that the petitioners workmen had not worked with the respondent management even for a period of 240 days, the learned Labour Court decided the additional issue in favor of the respondent management and took a view that on account of the said findings, there was no need to delve into the remaining issues. With these findings, the learned Labour Court dismissed the statements of claims of the petitioners workmen and answered the References against them.

(3.)Thence, the core issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the learned Labour Court rightly arrived at the findings that none of these petitioners had worked for even 240 days in the year preceding the date of the alleged termination of their services. In this regard, there is no dispute to the legal proposition that in view of the above mentioned rival pleadings, it was for the petitioners workmen to establish that they had worked with the respondent management for not less than 240 days in the year preceding the date of their alleged termination.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.