Anand Prakash
Vs
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be employed by the respondent as a driver in the year1995 without any appointment. He worked continuously with respondent till his termination in 1998. His service was terminated by management without specifying any reason or notice pay or compensation. The petitioner approached the Department of Labour, Government of Delhi with his grievances. The Labour inspector visited the respondent and tried to persuade the respondent to accede to the demand of the petitioner but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the conciliation officer but the matter could not be settled. Therefore, the matter was referred to Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the petitioner had not been able to discharge his burden of evidence of proving his employment as driver in the respondent company. Whereas the Management of the respondent Company, rejecting the conception of the appellant workman regarding his appointment, has provided the records showing that the petitioner was never employed by the Management and also that the administrative activities are done in a professional manner and are well documented and no appointments were made without appointment letter.
The petitioner went in appeal before High Court of Delhi.
Decision:
The Hon’ble High Court held that the Labour Court has rightly rejected the dispute of the petitioner alleging his wrongful termination because the petitioner has failed to support his claim by producing any documentary evidence regarding his relationship with the employer.
| Source: Labour Law Reporter, pg. no. 564, Delhi High Court, June 2009 |
Also Check: Other Legal Aspects
 |
 |