ADITYA NARAYAN YADAV Vs. AGGARWAL PLASTICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the award dated 16.07.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Industrial Adjudicator") in Direct Industrial Dispute No. 1193A/06 by which the claim of the petitioner was dismissed for want of jural relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

(2.) It was the case of the petitioner/workman that he was working with the respondent/management as a driver since 1989 and his last drawn salary was Rs.4,000/- per month. He pleaded that the respondent had its business at 10668, 10853, 10855 and 10856, Nabi Karim, Delhi and had also been managing M/s. Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics (India) Pvt. Ltd. at 34, Bahadur Garh, Haryana. He claimed that he had been driving vehicle No. HR46A-892 and he was also asked to drive the vehicle of the real brother of the proprietor of the respondent. He claimed that when he demanded his legal entitlements and unpaid wages, the respondent obtained his signatures on the blank papers on 08.04.2006 and removed him from the services. It is claimed that he had lodged a complaint with the police on 13.04.2006 and that the respondent had not paid his unpaid wages for the period from 01.02.2006 to 08.04.2006.

(3.) In its written statement, the respondent/management pleaded that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. It was pleaded that the petitioner had taken undue advantage with the help of local police in illegally obtaining a sum of Rs.8,633/- on 24.04.2007 without any direction/order from any court. It was pleaded that the claim cannot be looked into in the background of such an amount having been drawn through a cheque. It was also pleaded that the petitioner/workman was an employee of M/s. Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh, Haryana and that the court in Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the petition.