Case title:-Sunil Kumar & ors. Versus The state & ors.
Case no:-Wp..(c) 2931/2024 and cm appl no. 12084/2024
Decided on :-28th February 2024
Quorum:-Hon’ble Mr.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Facts of the case:-
The petitioners in this case, referred to as “petitioner workmen” from here on, began working for respondent no. 3, or M/s. Ask wire harness (referred to as “respondent management” from now on), in a variety of capacities. To save time the relevant information including the petitioners’ designation, date of appointment, and most recent salary is shown in tabular form . On august 3, 2011, the respondent management fired each of the petitioner workers in accordance with the petitioners’ pleas. Following that, the petitioner workers complained to the regional labour commissioner. The respondent management reinstated the petitioner workers following the involvement of the regional labour commissioner. The petitioner workers, via their trade union, issued a formal demand notice dated October 23, 2011, citing non payment of earnest wages for the period of June 1, 2011, to September 30, 2011.Following that, the petitioner workers filed applications with the learned labour court on November 16, 2011, citing default in accordance with section 15(2) of the payment of wages act, 1936. Payment made by the respondent management between June 1st, 2011 and September 30th, 2011.After the pleadings were concluded on October 31, 2012, the learned labour court formulated the following questions: Is the application that the worker filed not maintainable? Solace following that, the learned labour court issued an order for each of the petitioner workers individually in the contested decision dated July 31, 2017, noting that the workers had neglected to prove for the record that they were employed by the management from June 1, 2011, to September 30, 2011. As a result, the petitioner workers are not entitled to the pay they have claimed in their current applications. The petitioner workers then filed a review case against the aforementioned orders with the labour court, rouse avenue court, Delhi. The learned labour court denied the plea in a common order dated November 22, 2019. Because they were upset by the aforementioned instructions, the petitioner workers filed a writ suit under Article 226 of the constitution in an attempt to have the contested orders from the 31st in July 2017 and November 22, 2019.
Petitioner Contentions:-
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner workmen submitted that the learned labour court has erred in passing the impugned orders as the same have been passed without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case.It is submitted that the petitioner workmen had placed on record the photocopy of the attendance card for the month of November, 2011, which had not been appreciated by the learned labour court, leading to passing of the impugned orders. It is submitted that considering the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the learned labour court ought to have deduced from the attendance card of November, 2011, that the petitioner workmen were employed during the period i.e., 1st June, 2011 to 30th September, 2011, for which they seek payment of earnest wages.it is submitted that the learned labour court failed to consider the plea taken by the management in its written statement that the petitioner workmen had abandoned the services w.e.f. 1st June, 2011. It is submitted that if the above submission is presumed to be true, how the petitioner workmen could be in the service of the management for the month of November, 2011, for which the attendance card is on record.
Respondent Contentions:-
Counsel for the respondent states that it is submitted that the attendance card were issued to the petitioner workmen on monthly basis by the respondent management, subject to depositing the attendance card for the previous month before it and hence, it is in such light, that the petitioner workmen have failed to produce on record the attendance card for the period prior to the month of November, 2011. It is submitted that the petitioner workmen have been denied legitimate entitlement of earnest wages for the period 1st June, 2011 to 30th September, 2011, by the respondent management therefore, in light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner workmen prays that the instant petition may be allowed and the relief be granted, as pray edit is submitted that it is a settled position of law that the onus to prove that the petitioner workmen were in the service of the respondent management is upon the claimant, i.e., the party contending the same before the learned court. It is submitted that the instant petition is a frivolous claim as the petitioner workmen being claimants have failed to establish any shred of evidence to support their claim and establish employment with the respondent management for the period 1st June, 2011, to 30th September, 2011, for which they seek payment of earnest wages. The instant petitioner workmen have approached this court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the findings of the learned labour court as passed vide the impugned order dated 31st July, 2017, and 22ndnovember, 2019. The petitioner workmen have further sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to release the salary of the petitioner for the period 1st June, 2011 to 30th November, 2011.
Court Analysis and Judgement:-
Court stated that at last, it is imperative for this court to address one of the contentions vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner workmen. During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel vehemently contended that the production of attendance card for the month of November, 2011, must have been taken into consideration and applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities, it should have been presumed that they worked during the contested period. With regard to the above, this court is of the view that it would be wrong to presume the contested position since the petitioner workmen have failed to provide any other record to establish their employment with the respondent management. On being taken through the findings of the learned labour courts, it is crystal clear that the learned courts below had sufficient basis for recording its findings, and upon perusal of the same, the findings recorded by the learned court below are found satisfactory. Therefore, this court discerns no material to establish the propositions put forth by the petitioner workmen to characterise the orders passed by the learned labour courts as perverse and the reasoning provided by the learned courts below are well justified and legally tenable. In view of the above discussion of facts and law, this court finds no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 31st July, 2017, and 22nd November, 2019, passed by the learned presiding officer, labour court-v, karkardooma, delhi and presiding officer, labour court-v, rouse avenue court complex, New Delhi, respectively. Based on the aforementioned arguments, this writ petition accordingly dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
