SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. AAKARSHAN JEWELLERY PALACE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workman (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the award dated 21. 09. 2007 passed by Ms. Mamta Tayal, Presiding officer, Labour Court I, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement and back wages.

(2.) HEARD.

(3.) THE petitioner alleges termination from the services of the three managements who are respondents no. 1 to 3 herein w. e. f. 09. 05. 2000. He raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination which was referred by the appropriate Government to the labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court in which he stated that he was employed as the Accounts clerk by respondent no. 1 w. e. f. 01. 07. 1996 at a salary of Rs. 2100/- per month. His further case in the statement of claim was that though he was appointed as Accounts Clerk only by respondent no. 1 management but he was working on instructions of respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2 and 3 management also. The petitioner has also stated in his statement of claim that he was paid Rs. 700/- per month by all the three managements separately. The written statement before the Labour Court was filed only by respondent no. 1 and not by the other two respondents. The defence set up by the respondent no. 1 in his written statement was that the petitioner was employed as a part-time accountant for assisting the respondent no. 1 management and that he was coming to assist the respondent no. 1 management in connection with writing of account books only once or twice every week and that too for maximum one to three hours. No appointment letter was given by any of the respondent's management to the petitioner. The Court below has given a well-reasoned award for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated by the respondents and for that reason declined his claim for reinstatement and back wages. The witness of respondent no. 1 management in his evidence before the Court below has testified that the account books used to be written by he himself and that the petitioner has been coming only to assist him in some matters relating to accounts. This testimony of the management witness has remained totally un- rebutted on record.