Templates
Writs and appeals

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging Labour Court award under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, with supporting applications and affidavits

0 of 81 blanks filled

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's name Respondent's description.....Respondent

INDEX

S. No.PARTICULARSPAGES
1.Urgent Application
2.Notice of Motion
3.Certificate of Filing
4.Memo of Parties
5.Court Fee
6.Synopsis and List of Dates and Events
7.Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari, against the award dated Date of award passed by Presiding officer's name, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (now in Rouse Avenue Court Complex), in LIR No. LIR number, along with the affidavit.
8.Certified copy of the award dated Date of award passed by Presiding officer's name, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (now in Rouse Avenue Court Complex), in LIR No. LIR number.
9.Authority Letter
10.ANNEXURE-P1 — Copy of the Statement of Claim
11.ANNEXURE-P2 — Copy of the Written Statement
12.ANNEXURE-P3 — Copy of the Rejoinder
13.ANNEXURE-P4 — Statement of Respondent-WW-1
14.ANNEXURE-P5 — Copy of the pass issued by Issuer of pass — Exhibit WW-1/1
15.ANNEXURE-P6 — Copy of the pass issued by Issuer of pass — Exhibit WW-1/2
16.ANNEXURE-P7 — Copy of the gate passes issued by Issuer of gate passes — Exhibit WW-1/3
17.ANNEXURE-P8 — Copy of the gate pass issued by Issuer of gate pass — Exhibit WW-1/4
18.ANNEXURE-P9 — Copy of the temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name — Exhibit WW-1/5
19.ANNEXURE-P10 — Copy of the temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name — Exhibit WW-1/6
20.ANNEXURE-P11 — Copy of the Election Card — Mark 1
21.ANNEXURE-P12 — Copy of the Attendance Sheet — Mark 2
22.ANNEXURE-P13 — Statement of Sh. Name of witness WW-2 — WW-2
23.ANNEXURE-P14 — Copy of the Attendance Card — Exhibit WW-2/1
24.ANNEXURE-P15 — Copy of the letterhead of the sister concern — Exhibit WW-2/2
25.ANNEXURE-P16 — Copy of the salary vouchers for different months — Exhibit WW-2/3
26.ANNEXURE-P17 — Copy of the challan of the vehicle — Exhibit WW-2/4
27.ANNEXURE-P18 — Copy of the gate pass issued to WW-2 by the management — Exhibit WW-2/5
28.ANNEXURE-P19 — Copy of the transit declaration form — Exhibit WW-2/6
29.ANNEXURE-P20 — Copy of the report of the Labour Inspector dated Date of the Labour Inspector's report — Exhibit WW-2/7
30.ANNEXURE-P21 — Copy of the ESI Card of the witness — Exhibit WW-2/8
31.ANNEXURE-P22 — Copy of the identity card of the witness issued by Name of union (Union) — Exhibit WW-2/9
32.ANNEXURE-P23 — Copy of the list of co-workers who joined the Union — Mark A
33.ANNEXURE-P24 — Copy of the list of commercial vehicle numbers used for conveyance of goods and labourers — Mark B
34.ANNEXURE-P25 — Copy of the vehicle permission (gate pass) dated Date of the vehicle permission (gate pass) — Mark C
35.ANNEXURE-P26 — Copy of the installation certificate of the vehicle Vehicle model bearing registration number Vehicle registration number — Mark D
36.Application for ad-interim stay, along with affidavit
37.Application for exemption, along with affidavit
38.Application for condonation of delay, along with affidavit
39.Vakalatnama
DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Office: Advocate's office address

Mobile: Advocate's mobile number

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's name Respondent's description.....Respondent

MEMO OF PARTIES

Petitioner's name

Address: Petitioner's address…Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's name Respondent's description

Address: Respondent's address…Respondent
DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Office: Advocate's office address

Mobile: Advocate's mobile number

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's name Respondent's description.....Respondent

URGENT APPLICATION

To

The Registrar,

High Court of Delhi,

New Delhi.

Sir,

Kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent, in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, for the reason that the petition seeks an urgent interim relief.

DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Office: Advocate's office address

Mobile: Advocate's mobile number

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's name Respondent's description.....Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION

To,

Addressee of notice of motion

Sir,

Take notice that the accompanying writ petition is being filed on behalf of the Petitioner and is likely to be listed before the Hon'ble Court on Expected listing date or on any day thereafter.

DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Office: Advocate's office address

Mobile: Advocate's mobile number

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's name Respondent's description.....Respondent

COURT FEE

DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Office: Advocate's office address

Mobile: Advocate's mobile number

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's name Respondent's description.....Respondent

SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner, by way of the above-captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari, challenges the award dated Date of award passed by Presiding officer's name, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (now in Rouse Avenue Court Complex), in LIR No. LIR number, whereby the learned Presiding Officer has passed an award under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act"), admittedly at a time when the Respondent-Workman had failed to prove the existence of an employer–employee relationship and had further failed to discharge his burden of proving that he was in continuous service for a period of one year, as prescribed under Section 25B read with Section 25F of the Act. Secondly, the learned Presiding Officer has shifted the burden of proving the aforesaid twin conditions for invoking Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and has substituted such proof by drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner-management, particularly when the respondent-workman filed no application for the production of any document and no directions were issued on any such application to produce any such document. Furthermore, the respondent-workman failed to discharge his burden of proving that he was not gainfully employed, either by producing his savings bank passbook or his Aadhaar card, which would have enabled the Petitioner to test his claim of unemployment. The award, as passed by the learned Labour Court, is therefore ex facie illegal. Hence this petition.

Date of statement of claimThe Respondent-Workman filed a claim before the Labour Court on the premise that he had been working as a "Workman's designation" from Date of joining at a last drawn salary of ₹Last drawn salary (₹) per month. He further claimed that although no letter of appointment was ever issued to him, he was provided an identity card by the management. He further claimed that he was deputed to work at various sites and was also issued an identity card so that he could enter the premises and perform his duties without any hindrance. He further claimed that he used to mark his presence on plain sheets. He further claimed that he used to work the night shift, for which he was paid by the management, and that he was paid a subsistence amount for meals whenever he worked late hours in accordance with the management's schedule. He claimed that his services were illegally terminated on Date of termination when he demanded the statutory facilities from the management. A copy of the claim is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1.
DATE: Date of written statementThe petitioner-management, by way of its written statement, refuted the claim of the respondent-workman and contested the claim on the premise that no relationship of master and servant existed between the petitioner-management and the respondent-workman. It was pleaded that the respondent-workman was a daily wager / independent contractor over whom the management exercised no control whatsoever at any point of time, and that the respondent-workman was a seasonal worker, since the tent industry is a seasonal industry. It was further pleaded that the workman was never in continuous service for Number of days of continuous service claimed days in the year preceding the date of the alleged termination, i.e. Date of termination. A copy of the written statement is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-2.
DATE: Date of rejoinderThe respondent-workman, by way of rejoinder, controverted the averments made by the petitioner-management and reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim. A copy of the rejoinder is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-3.
DATE: Date of examination of WW-1In support of his claim, the respondent-workman examined himself as WW-1, and his evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Exhibit WW-1/A. In order to substantiate his claim, he produced a copy of a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/1; a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/2; a gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/3; a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/4; a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/5; and a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/6, together with a copy of an election card, marked as Marked-1, and an attendance sheet, marked as Marked-2 (Colly). A copy of the statement of the respondent-workman is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-4. Copies of the documents exhibited as Ex. WW-1 to WW-1/6 and marked as Marked-1 and Marked-2 are annexed herewith as Annexures P-5 to P-12.
DATE: Date of examination of WW-2Besides the deposition of the respondent-workman himself and the documents referred to above, he examined Name of witness WW-2 as WW-2, whose evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex. WW-2/A. During his examination, WW-2 exhibited an attendance card as Ex. WW-2/1; the letterhead of a sister concern as Ex. WW-2/2; salary vouchers for different months as Ex. WW-2/3; challans of vehicles as Ex. WW-2/4; a gate pass issued by the management to WW-2 as Ex. WW-2/5; a transit declaration form as Ex. WW-2/6; a report of the Labour Inspector as Ex. WW-2/7; the ESI card of WW-2 as Ex. WW-2/8; and the identity card of WW-2 issued by Name of union (the Union) as Ex. WW-2/9. WW-2 also relied upon a list of co-workers who had joined the Union, marked as Marked-A; a list of commercial vehicle numbers plied by the management for the conveyance of goods and labourers, marked as Marked-B; a vehicle permission gate pass dated Date of vehicle permission gate pass, marked as Marked-C; and an installation certificate of a vehicle, Tata Vehicle model, bearing registration No. Vehicle registration number, marked as Marked-D. A copy of the statement of WW-2 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-13. Copies of the documents exhibited as Ex. WW-2/1 to WW-2/9 are annexed herewith as Annexures P-14 to P-22, and copies of the marked documents, Marked-A to Marked-D, are annexed herewith as Annexures P-23 to P-26.

The petitioner most respectfully submits that the respondent-workman placed reliance upon eight gate passes, dated First gate pass date, Second gate pass date, Third gate pass date, Fourth gate pass date, Fifth gate pass date, Sixth gate pass date, and two gate passes bearing no date, in support of his plea. These gate passes are, firstly, daily gate passes; and, secondly, they are spread over a period of four years, despite his claim of having worked with the management since May Year of joining. Assuming, without admitting, his employment with the petitioner-management, a perusal of the aforesaid gate passes clearly shows that he was either a daily-wage earner or an independent contractor. Secondly, even on consolidation of all the working days reflected therein, which comes to four days, the pre-condition of continuous service of Number of days of continuous service claimed days preceding his date of termination, i.e. Date of termination, is not satisfied. Thus, the aforesaid gate passes neither establish any relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent, nor fulfil the conditions of continuous service necessary for invoking the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Evidently, in these circumstances, a daily-wage earner or an independent contractor would have no letter of appointment, no statutory benefits, and no entry of his name in the muster roll of the management. Thus, in view of the documents produced — more particularly, the gate passes produced by the workman himself — the entire foundation of his case stands knocked out, and as such the claim of the workman ought to have been rejected by the learned Labour Court.

The petitioner further submits that the respondent-workman produced copies of attendance cards/sheets for the periods July Attendance card period (month-year), November Attendance card period (month-year), an undated document, June Attendance card period (month-year), November Attendance card period (month-year), November (undated), September Attendance card period (month-year), October Attendance card period (month-year), June Attendance card period (month-year), January Attendance card period (month-year), December Attendance card period (month-year), February Attendance card period (month-year), May Attendance card period (month-year), February Attendance card period (month-year), January Attendance card period (month-year), and September Attendance card period (month-year), which are mere photocopies and are not admissible in evidence at all. It is most respectfully submitted that, on a perusal of these attendance cards/attendance sheets, nowhere does it appear that the said documents pertain to, or in any manner relate to, the petitioner, nor do they indicate that any relationship of master and servant existed between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, for these reasons also, the claim of the respondent was not maintainable before the learned Labour Court and ought to have been rejected by it.

The petitioner most respectfully submits that the respondent-workman examined Name of workman (WW-1) as WW-1 to substantiate the claim of employment and continuous service. WW-1, in order to establish his own employment for the period from March WW-2 employment start (month-year) to September WW-2 employment end (month-year), produced voluminous records, including the letterheads of the company and its sister concerns, challans, a transit declaration form, an ESI card, and an ESI registration certificate, evidencing his employment for a period of WW-2 length of employment (years) years. On the other hand, the respondent-workman, in order to establish his claim of employment for a period of Workman's claimed length of service (years) years, could not produce even a single document linking him with the petitioner-management, nor any document establishing his employment for a period of Number of days of service claimed days prior to his date of alleged termination, i.e. Date of termination. Thus, the very foundation of the claim of the respondent was not established, and as such the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim of the respondent-workman.

The petitioner most respectfully submits that it is not in dispute that WW-2 was in the regular employment of the petitioner-management, and it is an admitted case of the respondent-workman that he had always worked at outdoor sites. As such, the statement of WW-2 proving the employment of the respondent-workman is highly improbable. It is a settled position of law that documentary evidence always carries greater weight than oral evidence, it being a well-known axiom of law that men may tell lies, but documents cannot. Thus, in view of the documents placed on record contrary to the statement of WW-2, due regard must be given to those documents, and the statement of WW-2 ought to have been rejected by the learned Labour Court.

GROUNDS RELATING TO BURDEN OF PROOF (CONCLUDED)

With great respect, it is humbly submitted that it is the settled position of law that the burden of proving the existence of an employer–employee relationship, and also the fact that the workman was in continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days in the year preceding his date of termination, lies upon the workman himself, and it is for the workman to adduce evidence, apart from examining himself, to prove the factum of his employment with the employer. However, in the present case, the Respondent-Workman has miserably failed to prove the existence of an employer–employee relationship and his continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days in the preceding year in terms of Section 25B of the ID Act. It is humbly submitted that the Learned Labour Court, instead of rejecting the claim of the Respondent-Workman, proceeded on the assumption of continuous service on the basis of the aforesaid four daily gate passes spread over a period of Period covered by gate passes (years) years, which even if taken together could not establish continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days. The Learned Labour Court also lost sight of the fact that the attendance card and the attendance sheets/cards in the form of photocopies (though inadmissible) likewise do not indicate any link between the said sheets/cards and the Petitioner, nor do such sheets/cards anywhere disclose that the Respondent-Workman was ever in regular employment with the Petitioner. Moreover, the Learned Labour Court proceeded to draw an "adverse inference" against the Petitioner-Management for not producing documents. It is humbly submitted that the Learned Labour Court observed in paragraph 14 at page 15 of the impugned order:

"14…. The workman can even make an appropriate application calling upon the management to call such records in respect of his employment to be produced. In these circumstances if the management then fails to produce such records, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the management and in favour of the workman."

Admittedly, in the present case, no such application was filed calling upon the management to produce any record of employment, and therefore the drawing of an adverse inference, in the absence of such an application, is not only against the spirit of law but also contrary to the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that the burden of proof lies upon the party who would fail if no evidence were led on either side. In view of this settled position, the Learned Labour Court could not have shifted the burden of proof from the workman to the management, especially when the workman had failed even to prima facie show the existence of an employer–employee relationship and the factum of continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days in the year preceding his termination. Thus, the award as passed is ex facie illegal.

Hence, this Writ Petition.

DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Off: Advocate's office address

Mob: Advocate's mobile number

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name…..Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description …..Respondent

**

IN THE MATTER OF:

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI CHALLENGING THE AWARD DATED Date of award PASSED BY Presiding officer's name, ADJ, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI (NOW AT ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX), IN LIR NO. LIR number (OLD LIR NO. Old LIR number), WHEREBY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE AWARD UNDER SECTION 25F OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 ("THE ACT") ADMITTEDLY WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF LAW.

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.That the Petitioner, by way of the above-captioned Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari, challenges the award dated Date of award passed by Presiding officer's name, ADJ, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (now at Rouse Avenue Court Complex), in LIR No. LIR number (Old LIR No. Old LIR number), whereby the Learned Presiding Officer has passed an award under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act") admittedly without following the mandate of law, namely, firstly, that the relationship of master and servant was not established; and secondly, that it was also not established that the Respondent-Workman was in continuous service for a period of one year as prescribed under Section 25B read with Section 25F of the Act. Thus, the award as passed by the Learned Presiding Officer is ex facie illegal. Hence, this petition.
2.The factual matrix leading to the present petition is as under:
2.1That the Respondent-Workman filed a claim before the Labour Court on the premise that he had been working as a "Painter" from May Date of joining (month-year) at a last drawn salary of ₹ Last drawn salary (₹)/- per month. He further claimed that no letter of appointment was ever issued to him, but that he was provided an identity card by the management. He further claimed that he was deputed to work at different sites and was also given an identity card so that he could enter the premises and perform his duties without any hindrance. He further claimed that he used to mark his presence on a plain sheet. He further claimed that he used to work in the night shift for which he was paid by the management, and that he was paid a subsistence amount for meals when he worked late hours as per the schedule of the management.
2.2That the Respondent-Workman further claimed that the management did not provide him other statutory facilities such as weekly rest, casual leave, earned leave, non-deduction of wages for weekly rest, a leave book, an appointment letter, or salary slips, and that when he demanded the same, the Petitioner-Management became annoyed and terminated his services on Date of termination. It was further claimed that the Respondent-Workman sent a letter dated Date of demand letter to the Petitioner-Management by speed post, demanding payment of wages for the period worked, but the said letter was never replied to, nor were the earned wages paid by the management to the Respondent-Workman. It was further claimed that he had approached the labour department, but the management neither appeared there nor produced any documents before the labour department. It was further pleaded that his termination by the management was illegal and that he was unemployed. He prayed that the termination of the Respondent-Workman from the employment of the management be set aside, that the management be directed to pay full wages for the period worked and for the period of unemployment, and that the costs of litigation be awarded to the Respondent-Workman. A copy of the claim is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-1.
2.3That on Date of written statement, the Petitioner-Management, by way of its written statement, refuted the claim of the Respondent-Workman and defended against the claim on the premise that there existed no master–servant relationship between the Petitioner-Management and the Respondent-Workman; that the Respondent-Workman was a daily wager / independent contractor over whom the management had no control whatsoever at any point of time; and that the Respondent-Workman was a seasonal worker, the tent industry being a seasonal industry. It was further pleaded that the workman was never in continuous service of Number of days of continuous service claimed days in the year preceding the date of the alleged termination, i.e., Date of termination. A copy of the written statement is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-2.
2.4That the respondent-workman, by way of rejoinder, controverted the averments made by the petitioner-management and reiterated the averments contained in the statement of claim. A copy of the rejoinder is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3.
2.5That on Date of framing of issues, the Ld. Labour Court, from the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for trial:-
(1). Whether the work of the management is of a seasonal nature and theworkman is a seasonal worker, working on a temporary basis as per requirement? If so, what effect? OPM

(2). Whether no relationship of employer and employee exists between the claimant and the management? OPW

(3). Whether the claimant has not completed Number of days of continuous service claimed days of service continuously in a year? If so, what effect? OPW

(4)As per the terms of reference.

2.6 That, in support of his claim, the Respondent-Workman examined himself as WW-1, and his evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Exhibit WW-1/A. In order to substantiate his claim, he produced a copy of a temporary gate pass issued by the Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/1; a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/2; three gate passes issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/3; a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as Ex. WW-1/4; a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as WW-1/5; and a temporary gate pass issued by Third-party organisation name, exhibited as WW-1/6; together with a copy of an election card, marked as Marked-1, and an attendance sheet, marked as Marked-2 (Colly). A copy of the statement of the Respondent-Workman is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-4. Copies of the documents exhibited as Ex. WW-1 to 6 and Marked-1 and 2 are annexed herewith as Annexure-P-5 to P-12.

2.7That, besides the deposition of the respondent himself and the documents aforesaid, he examined Name of witness WW-2 as WW-2, whose evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex. WW-2/A. During his examination, he exhibited the attendance card as Ex. WW-1/1, the letterhead of the sister concern as Ex. WW-2/2, salary vouchers for different months as Ex. WW-2/3, challans of vehicles as Ex. WW-2/4, a gate pass issued by the management to WW-2 as WW-2/5, a transit declaration form as Ex. WW-2/6, the report of the Labour Inspector as Ex. WW-2/7, the ESI card of WW-2 as Ex. WW-2/8, and the identity card of WW-2 issued by Name of union (Union) as Ex. WW-2/9. WW-2 also relied upon a list of co-workers who had joined the Union, marked as Marked-A; a list of commercial vehicle numbers plied by the management for conveyance of goods and labourers, marked as Marked-B; a vehicle permission gate pass dated Date of vehicle permission gate pass, marked as Marked-C; and the installation certificate of a vehicle, Tata Vehicle model, bearing registration No. Vehicle registration number, marked as Marked-D. A copy of the statement of WW-2 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-13. Copies of the exhibited documents, Exhibits WW-2/1 to WW-2/9, are annexed herewith as Annexure-P-14 to P-22. Copies of the marked documents, Marked A to D, are annexed herewith as Annexure P-23 to P-26.
2.8That the Petitioner submits that the Respondent-Workman placed reliance upon eight gate passes, i.e. dated First gate pass date, Second gate pass date, Third gate pass date, Fourth gate pass date, Fifth gate pass date, Sixth gate pass date, Seventh gate pass date, dated Nil, and dated Nil, in support of his plea. Firstly, these gate passes are daily gate passes; secondly, they are spread over a period of three years, despite his claim of working with the management since May Year of joining. Assuming, without admitting, his employment with the petitioner-management, a perusal of the aforesaid gate passes clearly shows that he was either a daily wage earner or an independent contractor. Further, even upon consolidation of all the working days, which comes to eight, the precondition of continuous service of Number of days of continuous service claimed days preceding his date of termination, i.e. Date of termination, is not satisfied. Thus, the aforesaid gate passes neither establish any relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent nor fulfil the conditions of continuous service necessary to invoke the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, Year of enactment of Industrial Disputes Act. Evidently, in these circumstances, a daily wage earner or independent contractor would have no letter of appointment, no statutory benefits, and no entry of his name in the muster roll of the management. In view of the documents, and more specifically the gate passes produced by the workman himself, the entire foundation of his case is knocked out, and as such, the claim of the workman ought to have been rejected by the Ld. Labour Court.
2.9That the Petitioner further submits that the workman-respondent produced copies of attendance cards/sheets for the periods July Attendance card period (month-year), November Attendance card period (month-year), dated Nil, June Attendance card period (month-year), November Attendance card period (month-year), November, September Attendance card period (month-year), October Attendance card period (month-year), June Attendance card period (month-year), January Attendance card period (month-year), December Attendance card period (month-year), February Attendance card period (month-year), May Attendance card period (month-year), February Attendance card period (month-year), January Attendance card period (month-year), and September Attendance card period (month-year), which are mere photocopies and are not admissible in evidence at all. It is humbly submitted that a perusal of these attendance cards/attendance sheets nowhere indicates that the said documents pertain to, or in any manner relate to, the petitioner, nor do they indicate that there existed any relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, on this ground also, the claim of the respondent was not maintainable before the Ld. Labour Court and ought to have been rejected by the Ld. Labour Court.

2.10 That the Petitioner humbly submits that the respondent-workman examined Sh. Name of witness WW-2 as WW-2 to substantiate the claim of employment and continuous service. The said witness, in order to establish his own employment from March WW-2 employment start (month-year) to September WW-2 employment end (month-year), produced voluminous records, including the letterheads of the company and its sister concerns, challans, transit declaration forms, ESI card, and ESI registration certificate, evidencing his employment for a period of WW-2 length of employment (years) years. On the other hand, the respondent-workman, in order to establish his claim of employment for a period of X years, could not produce even a single document linking him with the petitioner-management, nor even evidence of his employment for a period of Number of days of service claimed days prior to his date of alleged termination, i.e. Date of termination. Thus, the very foundation of the claim of the respondent was not established, and as such, the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim of the respondent-workman.

2.11 That the Petitioner humbly submits that, admittedly, WW-2 was in the regular employment of the petitioner-management, and it is an admitted case of the respondent-workman that he has always worked at outdoor sites; as such, the statement of WW-2 proving the employment of the respondent-workman is highly improbable. It is a settled position of law that documentary evidence will always take precedence over oral evidence, for it is a well-known axiom of law that men may tell lies, but documents cannot. Thus, in view of the documents placed on record, which run contrary to the statement of WW-2, due regard must be given to the documents, and the statement of WW-2 ought to have been rejected by the Ld. Labour Court.

3.With great respect, it is humbly submitted that it is the settled position of law that the burden of proof for establishing the existence of a relationship of employer and employee, and also the fact that the workman was in continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days in the year preceding his date of termination, lies upon the workman himself, and it is for the workman to adduce evidence, apart from examining himself, to prove the factum of his employment with the employer. However, in the present case, the respondent-workman has miserably failed to prove the existence of a relationship of employer and employee, and his continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days in the preceding year in terms of Section 25B of the ID Act. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Labour Court, instead of rejecting the claim of the respondent-workman, proceeded on the assumption of continuous service on the basis of the aforesaid eight daily gate passes spread over a period of four years, which, even when consolidated, could not prove continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days. The Ld. Labour Court also lost sight of the fact that the attendance cards and attendance sheets/cards, in the form of photocopies (though inadmissible), do not indicate any link between the said sheets/cards and the petitioner, nor do such sheets/cards anywhere disclose that the respondent-workman ever worked in regular employment with the petitioner. Moreover, the Court proceeded on the point of "adverse inference" against the petitioner-management for not producing the documents. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Labour Court has indicated in paragraph 14, page 15 of the impugned order:-

“14…. The workman can even make an appropriate application calling upon the management to call such records in respect of his employment to be produced. In these circumstances if the management then fails to produce such records, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the management and in favour of the workman.”

Admittedly, in the present case, no such application was filed calling upon the management to produce any record of employment, and hence the drawing of an adverse inference, in the absence of such an application, is not only against the spirit of law but also against the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that the burden of proof lies upon the person who would fail if no evidence were led on either side. In view of this settled position, the Ld. Labour Court could not have shifted the burden of proof from the workman to the management, especially when the workman failed even to prima facie show the existence of an employer–employee relationship and the factum of continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days in the year preceding his termination. Thus, the award passed by the Ld. Labour Court is ex-facie illegal and contrary to law. In these pressing circumstances, the petitioner has no alternative efficacious remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the following grounds, amongst others:

G R O U N D S

A. Because the Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that, under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the burden of proof lies upon the workman to show that he had worked continuously for Number of days of continuous service required days in the preceding one year, and it is for the workman to adduce evidence, apart from examining himself, to prove the factum of employment with the employer. It is humbly submitted that the respondent workman has neither produced any evidence nor discharged his burden of proving continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days preceding one year from his alleged termination, i.e., Date of termination. In the present case, the workman has produced no evidence to show that he was in the employment of the petitioner between Start of alleged employment period and End of alleged employment period. Thus, in the absence of any evidence establishing the pre-condition of continuous service, the invocation of Section 25F of the ID Act by the Ld. Labour Court is ex-facie illegal, and the award passed by the Ld. Labour Court is liable to be set aside.

B. Because the Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that the right to reasoned decisions is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, and that reasons, at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before the court, are required. A further rationale for recording reasons is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is the spelling out of reasons for the order made. It is humbly submitted that, while passing the impugned award, the Ld. Labour Court, in the major portion of the award, merely reiterated the pleadings and the evidence of the parties; even while deciding issue Nos. Issue numbers in the award in paragraph No. Paragraph number of the award of the award, the Ld. Labour Court only discussed the position of law across Number of pages of reasoning pages and did not give any reasons for deciding the issues against the petitioner. Thus, the award passed by the Ld. Labour Court is ex-facie illegal and is liable to be set aside.

C. Because the Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that, in labour and industrial jurisprudence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the management only where an application for production of the relevant documents has been filed before the Ld. Labour Court and necessary directions have been issued in that behalf, and where, in such circumstances, the management fails to produce the relevant employment documents as directed. In the present case, neither was any such application filed nor was any such direction issued by the Ld. Labour Court; hence, the drawing of an adverse inference by the Ld. Labour Court, and the consequent shifting of the burden of proof of the existence of the relationship of employer and employee, as also of continuous service as a daily wager / independent contractor, upon the employer, is ex-facie illegal, and the award as passed is liable to be set aside.

D. Because the Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that a workman must stand on his own legs and that the general principles of evidence apply to proceedings before the Ld. Labour Court. It is humbly submitted that Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, enacts that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent upon the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist; when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 102 of the Evidence Act enacts that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly establishes that a workman must stand on his own legs, and that if he fails to establish the existence of an employer–employee relationship and his continuous service of Number of days of continuous service required days, he would fail if no evidence were led by him to establish the said facts. Thus, the burden of proof lies upon him, and an adverse inference cannot substitute proof of the existence of a fact by the workman. In the present case, no evidence was led by the workman to prima facie establish his case, and as such he is not entitled to any relief as claimed. In these circumstances, the award as passed is liable to be set aside.

E. Because the Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that it is a judicially noticeable fact that the Nature of the petitioner's industry industry in India is a seasonal industry, having regard to the religious and spiritual beliefs of people across the various tenets of the community, and that, owing to technological advancement and changing lifestyles, people have shifted to fixed pandals and banquets for reasons of security and otherwise. Admittedly, it was not the case of the respondent workman that the petitioner management owns any fixed or permanent pandals, or that he was employed at any location for a period longer than a couple of days. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Labour Court failed to take judicial notice of the fact that the said industry is a seasonal industry, and that the respondent workman failed to dispel that fact by leading evidence to the contrary. Thus, the award passed by the Ld. Labour Court is ex-facie illegal and is liable to be set aside.

F. Because the Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that, having regard to the principles analogous to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving that he was not gainfully employed lay upon the workman. Admittedly, in the present case, the workman did not produce the passbook of his savings bank account, or that of his family members dependent upon him, and deliberately withheld his Aadhaar Card, thereby enabling — indeed, preventing — the petitioner from confronting the respondent workman during his cross-examination with his earnings, etc., linked to his Aadhaar Card. Thus, the respondent workman failed to establish before the Ld. Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed, and as such, the grant of compensation by the Ld. Labour Court in the absence of any evidence of unemployment is ex-facie illegal, and the award as passed is liable to be set aside.

G. Because the Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that the awarding of reinstatement of a workman is directly linked to the existence of a relationship of employer and employee. In the present case, the workman miserably failed to establish the master-and-servant relationship, and as such the reinstatement of the respondent with the petitioner is ex-facie illegal, and the award as passed is liable to be set aside.

H. Because the impugned award dated Date of impugned award is illegal, contrary to law, and is liable to be set aside. The Petitioner reserves its right to raise additional grounds, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court, during the course of submissions.

4.That the Petitioner has not filed any petition, appeal or proceeding challenging the award dated Date of award passed by the Learned Labour Court, claiming identical or similar reliefs, either before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

PRAYER

In the premises aforesaid, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

i)Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside the Award dated Date of award passed by Presiding officer's name, ADJ, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (now in Rouse Avenue Court Complex), in ID No. ID case number, thereby rejecting the claim of the Respondent-Workman; or, in the alternative, set aside the aforesaid award and the Order dated Date of remand order thereby remanding the matter back for leading of evidence by the Petitioner-Management and for a just decision of the case on merits by the Learned Labour Court; and
ii)Pass such other and further order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for Petitioner

Off: Advocate's office address

Mob: Advocate's mobile number

Email: Advocate's email address

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

L.P.A. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's nameRespondent's description Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, Partner of Name of firm, Address: Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.That I am the Partner of the Petitioner in the above-captioned writ petition and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and as such I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the accompanying writ petition has been drafted on my instructions. The contents thereof may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, and the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3.That the above statement is true and correct.
4.That the contents of the list of dates and events have been drafted by my counsel on my instructions and are true to the best of my knowledge derived from the records maintained by me.
5.That the contents of the Paragraphs of the Petition have been drafted by my counsel and are based on the legal advice received from the counsel for the Petitioner, which the Petitioner believes to be true.
6.That the Annexures to the Petition are true copies of their respective originals.
7.That the Petitioner has not preferred any similar Petition or other appeal in the above-mentioned matter.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Petitioner's name..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's nameRespondent's description Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, Partner of Name of firm, Address: Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.That the Deponent is the Partner of the Petitioner Firm in the above-captioned LPA and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and as such is competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the accompanying application has been drafted on my instructions. The contents thereof may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, and the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3.That the above statement is true and correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's nameRespondent's description Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR STAY

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1.That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying writ petition. The contents thereof may be read as part and parcel of this application, and the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2.That the award dated Date of award has been passed by the Learned Labour Court without any proof of the existence of an employer–employee relationship and without proof of the continuous service of the workman. The Petitioner thus has a prima facie good case, and the balance of convenience also lies in its favour.
3.That the Petitioner has come to learn that the officials of the Labour Office are coming to implement the impugned award, and as such, the Petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
4.That if the ad interim stay is not granted, the Petitioner shall be seriously prejudiced. On the other hand, the Respondent shall not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever.

PRAYER

In the premises aforesaid, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a)Grant an ad interim ex parte stay on the operation of the Award dated Date of award passed by Presiding officer's name, ADJ, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (now in Rouse Avenue Court Complex), in LIR No. LIR number (Old LIR No. Old LIR number), during the pendency of the above-captioned writ petition; and
(b)Pass such other and further order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for Petitioner

Off: Advocate's office address

Mob: Advocate's mobile number

E

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.of Year of writ petition

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's nameRespondent's description Respondent

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING LEGIBLE AND TYPED COPIES OF ANNEXURES AND ALSO FROM FILING COPIES IN THE PRESCRIBED MARGIN

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1.That the Petitioner has filed copies of certain documents along with the petition, which are true copies of their respective originals.
2.That, due to paucity of time, the Petitioner could not file legible and typed copies of the Annexures, and some of such copies are not in the prescribed margin.
3.That the Petitioner undertakes to file legible and typed copies of the Annexures in the prescribed margin, as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, and in the interest of justice, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

a)Exempt the Petitioner from filing legible and typed copies of the Annexures; and
b)Exempt the Petitioner from filing copies of the Annexures in the prescribed margin; and
c)Pass such other and further order or direction as may be deemed fit, proper, necessary and expedient.
DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for Petitioner

Off: Advocate's office address

Mob: Advocate's mobile number

E

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

L.P.A. No.of 20….

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Petitioner's name…..…...Petitioner

Versus

Respondent's nameRespondent's description Respondent

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURES IN VERNACULAR

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1.That the Petitioner has filed copies of certain documents in the vernacular along with the petition, which are true copies of their respective originals.
2.That, owing to paucity of time, the Petitioner could not obtain English translations of the annexures filed in the vernacular.
3.That the Petitioner undertakes to file the translated copies of the annexures as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a)Exempt the Petitioner from filing translated copies of the Annexures; and
(b)Pass such further order or direction as may be deemed fit, proper, necessary and expedient in the facts of the case.
DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Off: Advocate's office address

Mob: Advocate's mobile number

Email: Advocate's email address

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.Writ petition number of 20Year of writ petition

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name………Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description ………Respondent

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.That the Petitioner has filed copies of certain documents along with the petition, which are true copies of their respective originals.
2.That, owing to paucity of time, the Petitioner could not obtain certified copies of all the Annexures.
3.That the Petitioner undertakes to file the certified copies of the Annexures as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a)Exempt the Petitioner from filing certified copies of the Annexures; and
(b)Pass such further order or direction as may be deemed fit, proper, necessary and expedient in the facts of the case.
DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Off: Advocate's office address

Mob: Advocate's mobile number

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

L.P.A. No.LPA number of 20Year of LPA

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name………Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description ………Respondent

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING OF THE PETITION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated Date of award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
2.That the above-captioned petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court on Date of filing of petition vide Diary No. Diary number, and was received under objection.
3.That the earlier clerk of the counsel for the Petitioner misplaced the above-captioned writ petition in the office of the counsel for the Petitioner and failed to inform the counsel of its status. Upon a search of the records of the office, it transpired that the said petition had been received under objection and that the defects had not been cured by the clerk.
4.That the delay in re-filing the above-captioned petition is unintentional and bona fide.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of Delay in refiling (days) days in re-filing the above-captioned petition, in the interest of justice.

DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

L.P.A. No.LPA number of 20Year of LPA

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name………Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description ………Respondent

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

It is certified that the documents accompanying the writ petition are true copies of the record as filed and relied upon before the learned Court below. The complete tribunal record has been filed, and no additional document other than the tribunal record has been filed.

DateDate
PlaceAdvocate for the Petitioner

Mob: Advocate's mobile number

Email: Advocate's email address

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.Writ petition number of 20Year of writ petition

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name………Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description ………Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, Partner of Name of firm, Address: Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.That I am a Partner of the Petitioner in the above-captioned writ petition and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and as such I am competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the accompanying application has been drafted on my instructions. The contents thereof may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit and, for the sake of brevity, the same have not been repeated herewith.
3.That the statements made above are true and correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Place of verification on this Day of verification day of Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.Writ petition number of 20Year of writ petition

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name………Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description ………Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, Partner of Name of firm, Address: Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.That I am a Partner of the Petitioner in the above-captioned writ petition and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and as such I am competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the accompanying application has been drafted on my instructions. The contents thereof may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit and, for the sake of brevity, the same have not been repeated herewith.
3.That the statements made above are true and correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Place of verification on this Day of verification day of Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.Writ petition number of 20Year of writ petition

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name………Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description ………Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, Partner of Name of firm, Address: Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.That I am the Partner of the Petitioner in the above-captioned writ petition and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and as such I am competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the accompanying application has been drafted on my instructions. The contents thereof may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit and, for the sake of brevity, the same have not been repeated herewith.
3.That the statements made above are true and correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Place of verification on this Day of verification day of Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. No.Writ petition number of 20Year of writ petition

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioner's name………Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondent's nameRespondent's description ………Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, Partner of Name of firm, Address: Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.That the deponent is the Partner of the Petitioner firm in the above-captioned writ petition and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and as such the deponent is competent to swear the present affidavit.

AFFIDAVIT

2.That the accompanying application has been drafted at my instance and under my instructions. The contents thereof may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit, and the contents of the said application have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3.That the statements made above are true and correct, and no material fact has been concealed.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

Verified at Place of verification on this Day of verification day of Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

1 / 1

Related templates

All templates
Writs and appeals

Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal with supporting affidavit

Writs and appeals

Commercial appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act against trial court decree, with supporting applications and affidavit

Writs and appeals

Criminal writ petition under Article 226 r/w Section 528 BNSS for quashing of one-year sentence extension and consideration of premature release

Writs and appeals

Criminal writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS for quashing one-year sentence extension and premature release