BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-9, KARKARDOOMA

DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.

I.D. No. 634/2015

In the matter of:

Shri Vibhuti Prasad ….Claimant

Versus

M/s Chaudhary Bhullan

Singh and Sons …. Management

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT TO THE

CLAIM FILED BY THE WORKMEN/ CLAIMANT

Most respectfully showeth:

Preliminary Objections:-

1. That the claim petition as filed by the workman is not maintainable

as the claimant have not come with clean hands and concocted the

material facts before the Hon'ble Court, the claim appears to be

less substantiated with facts. Hence the claim deserves dismissal

being a misplaced ere-supposition.

2. That present reference is bad in law as well as without application

of mind and in a stereotype manner, thus it is liable to be

dismissed.

3. That the management is commission agent of potatoes and deals in

potatoes at the New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. It is further

submitted that the management’s industrial establishment is of a

 seasonal character and the work is only performed intermittently.

It is also submitted that due to the nature of work the management

hires badli or casual workers to perform the day-to-day odd job on

contractual basis.

4. That the claimant is aged about 70 years as per the Voter Identity

Card annexed with the statement of claim filed by the claimant.

That the claimant was working as a badli/ casual workman for the

management performing different odd jobs in lieu of which the

management paid more than the minimum wages as per the law.

That due to the ill health of the claimant workman the

management terminated the services of the claimant and keeping

in mind his ill health, no further work was allotted to the claimant

in any manner by the management. That the Hon’ble Allahabad

High Court has held in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of

India v. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava 1994 LLR 573 (All) (DB) that,

“termination does not amount to retrenchment and therefore

provisions of Section 25F is not attracted”. Similarly in the case of

Mana Thomas Gonsalves v. Concept Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., (2002)

IV LLJ (Supp) Bom 906, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held

that, “The termination order cannot be said to be an order of

retrenchment warranting compliance of Section 25F of the Act as

the workman was not being retrenched as a surplus workman but

she was being terminated on the ground of her unsatisfactory

work.”

5. That there is no relationship of employer and employee and that of

a master and servant existing or otherwise exists between the

claimant and the management.

6. That the present claim petition has no cause of action against the

management, as claimant had never been engaged as an employee

of the management.

7. That the above claimant has no locus-standi to file this claim

against the management being there is no industrial dispute

between the claimant and management.

8. That Section 2 (oo) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states

that “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the

service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as

a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not

include termination of the service of a workman on the ground of

continued ill-health. Thus in view of the said definition, the

termination of the claimant herein can not be called as a

retrenchment and the management shall not be made liable in any

manner whatsoever for providing any compensation to the claimant

in accordance to the provision of the Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

9. That the provisions laid down under the Section 25-C of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 states that before a workman claim lay-off

compensation he must fulfill the following conditions:

(i) his name must be on the muster rolls of an industrial

establishment;

(ii) he must have completed at least one year’s continuous

service;

(iii) the workman must not be a badli or a casual workman.

That in view of the above stated provisions the claimant is not

entitled to any relief whatsoever, the claimant has been trying to

get favorable orders from this hon’ble court by suppression of

 material facts. The claimant has not fulfilled any of the above

stated statutory conditions to get eligible for any sort of relief under

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the claimant

is a badli or a casual workman and has never completed one year’s

of continuous service with the management.

Reply on merits:-

1. That the contents mentioned under the para 1 of the statement of

the claim is absolutely wrong, misconceived and denied. It is

specifically denied that the claimant was working as an Assistant-

Account Cashier since 17.05.1983 at a last drawn salary of Rs.

10,000/-. It is submitted that the management is commission

agents of potatoes and deals in potatoes at the New Subzi Mandi,

Azadpur, Delhi. It is further submitted that the management’s

industrial establishment is of a seasonal character and the work is

only performed intermittently. It is also submitted that due to the

nature of work the management hires badli or casual workers to

perform the day-to-day odd job. It is pertinent to mention here that

no letter of appointment was ever issued to the claimant and the

claimant is making false claims by submitting fabricated

documents before this hon’ble court.

2. That the contents mentioned under the para 2 of the statement of

claim are absolutely baseless, whimsical and denied. It is

specifically denied that the claimant performed his duties towards

the management with utmost honesty and sincerity.

3. That the contents mentioned under the para 3 of the statement of

claim are absolutely wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that

the management used or adopted any unfair labour practices

 against the claimant. It is pertinent to mention here that this

hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any disputes related

to minimum wages or earned leaves, also this hon’ble court can not

go beyond the terms of reference laid down under the Order No.

F.24/ID/147/2015/NWD/410/15/Lab/2038-42 dated 19.06.2015

issued by the office of the Joint Labour Commissioner (North-

West), GNCTD.

4. That the contents mentioned under the para 4 of the statement of

claim are absolutely wrong and vehemently denied. It is specifically

denied that the management terminated the services of the

claimant in an unfair manner on 28.08.2014. However it is

pertinent to mention here that the claimant abruptly stop coming

to the office of management on his own wish and without informing

the management.

5. That the contents mentioned under the para 5 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that the

claimant ever returned to the management’s industrial

establishment or ever demanded for any work. It is pertinent to

mention here that after abruptly quitting one day, the claimant

himself informed the management that due to the old age and ill

health, the claimant shall not be in a position to continue in any

manner.

6. That the contents mentioned under the para 6 of the statement of

claim are absolutely vague, baseless and denied. It is specifically

denied that the claimant worked continuously for 240 days or more

in one calendar year. It is further specifically denied that the

management is responsible for the lay-off or retrenchment of the

claimant under the relevant provisions of the law.

7. That the contents mentioned under the para 7 of the statement of

claim are absolutely wrong and denied. That the management

craves leave to reply upon para 8 of the preliminary objections as a

traverse to the para 7 under reply as the contents thereof are not

repeated for the sake of brevity.

8. That the contents mentioned under the para 8 of the statement of

claim are admitted to the extent that the claimant made a

complaint dated 22.12.2014 before the office of Joint Labour

Commissioner (North West), however rest of the contents

mentioned as under the para 8 of the statement of claim are

absolutely wrong and denied. It is pertinent to mention here that

the facts as mentioned under the said complaint by the claimant

were absolutely baseless, vague and misconceived.

9. That the contents mentioned under the para 9 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is pertinent to mention here that the

contents mentioned by the claimant under the notice-dated

12.11.2014 were absolutely false and baseless. It is also submitted

that the claims made under the said notice were bloated and

inflated.

10. That the contents mentioned under the para 10 of the statement of

claim are absolutely wrong and denied.

11. That the contents mentioned under the para 11 of the statement of

claim are absolutely wrong, false, baseless and hence vehemently

denied. Reference is craved here to preliminary objections above in

full reply to the present para.

12. That the contents mentioned under the para 12 of the statement of

claim is wrong and denied. It is specifically denied for want of

knowledge that claimant is unemployed. That the Claimant may be

 asked to give strict proof of the averments made in para under

reply.

13. Prayer clause is absolutely wrong, false, baseless, imaginary and

hence, vehemently denied.

In view of the submissions hereinabove, it is respectfully

prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to dismiss the claim of

the workman and give its award accordingly.

DELHI Management

DATED:

Through

Karan Sharma
Counsel for the Management
C-4, LGF, Nizamudin East,
New Delhi-110013

Verification:

Verified at Delhi on this day of March, 2016 that the contents of

paragraph 1 to 13 of the written statement are true to my knowledge and

those of paragraph 1 to 9 of preliminary objections are true upon

information received and believed to be correct. Last paragraph is a

prayer to this Hon’ble Court.

Management
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-9, KARKARDOOMA
DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
I.D. No. 634/2015

In the matter of:

Shri Vibhuti Prasad ….Claimant
Versus
M/s Chaudhary Bhullan
Singh and Sons …. Management

AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Bhullan Singh son of Late Shri Raja Ram aged about 75
years and resident of A-131, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033.

I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under: -

1. That the deponent is the management in the aforesaid statement of

claim and the accompanying written statement is being filed by the
deponent, the contents of the same are drafted read over and
explained to the deponent by the counsel of the deponent which
are correct and may be read as part and parcel of the present
affidavit which are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of March 2014 that the contents of
my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has
been concealed there from and no part of it is false.

DEPONENT