Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Petitioner’s Testimony Leads to Dismissal of Workman Status Claim – Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

 The Delhi High Court, in its judgement dated April 4, 2024, dismissed the writ petition filed by Anokhe Lal challenging the award of the Labour Court on his termination of services. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed significant discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims regarding his employment status, leading to the upholding of the Tribunal’s decision

 

Brief on Legal Point:

The core issue revolved around whether the petitioner qualified as a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner’s inconsistent testimony and unreliable evidence were pivotal in determining the case’s outcome.

Anokhe Lal, the petitioner, alleged illegal termination by M/s Gauri Enterprises and sought quashing of the Labour Court’s award along with reinstatement with benefits. He claimed to have worked as a ‘storekeeper/delivery man’ since 1988. However, the respondent, represented by Mr. Atul K. Bandhu, contested this, asserting the petitioner was a contractual ‘deliveryman’ and not a permanent employee.

Detailed Court Assessment: Workman Status Examination: Contradictory Claims: The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the petitioner’s role claims, observing a mismatch between his testimonial and documentary evidence, particularly an ‘interpolated appointment letter.’

Unreliable Testimony: The petitioner’s varying accounts about his employment role led to the Tribunal’s conclusion that he was not a workman under the Act.

Termination of Services: Lack of Consistency: The petitioner’s account of termination lacked consistency, undermining the claim of illegal termination.

Judicial Review under Article 226: Limited Interference: The High Court exercised restraint, respecting the Tribunal’s findings where no arbitrariness was evident. The court emphasized its role as ensuring legal propriety and natural justice.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, confirming the conclusions about the petitioner’s workman status and the nature of his termination.

Date of Decision: April 4, 2024.

Anokhe Lal vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr

Latest Legal News