PRIYA ENTERPRISES Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A claim was filed by Mr. Het Narain Jha, a workman, employed by the petitioner. His last drawn salary was Rs. 1,600/- per month. According to the workman, he was admitted to hospital for treatment after he had met with an accident during the course of his employment on 28. 10. 1998. However, after recovering, he was not permitted to re-join his duties on 10. 1. 1999. The workman claims to have sent a demand notice dated 21. 4. 1999. In defence, the petitioner-management pleaded that in fact the workman had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding year, and, as such, he could not be deemed to be in continuous service in terms of Section 25b of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, he was not entitled to the protection under Section 25f of the industrial Disputes Act. According to the petitioner, Mr. Jha had worked for only five months from May 1998 to September 1998; and that too only as a Helper, for which he had been paid the requisite salary under the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner also took the stand that even during the span of the five months that he worked with the petitioner, he was highly irregular, erratic, careless and dishonest, as well as insincere in his duties, because of which he was repeatedly warned and reprimanded, but to no avail. According to the petitioner, the workman was incorrigible and eventually abandoned his job.

(2.) IN the written statement filed before the Labour Court, the petitioner also took the stand that it was unable to prove any of the facts pleaded therein because the entire record pertaining to attendance, salary, appointments, vouchers and ledgers for the period 1996 to 1998 had been lost. The petitioner stated that a complaint with regard to the loss of the record had been lodged, and a publication was also effected in that behalf. As noticed by the Labour court, this record was allegedly lost when the same was being taken on a scooter to the conciliation proceedings in this very matter. All other facts pleaded by the respondent, Mr. Jha, were also denied in the written statement by the petitioner.

(3.) ACCORDING to the management, Mr. Jha had left its services in the month of September 1998, which was much before the date of the alleged accident which he claimed had occurred during his employment on 28. 10. 1998. The petitioner took the stand that the entire story of the workman was concocted and baseless. In addition, the petitioner denied having received the demand notice dated 21. 4. 1999 allegedly sent by the respondent. In addition, it was also pleaded that the respondent, Mr. Jha, is gainfully employed elsewhere.