BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT 07

ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI

LIR No.5729/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
BRIJESH SINGH …WORKMAN/CLAIMANT
VERSUS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED
…MANAGEMENT/RESPONDENT
INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Application Under Order XV Rule 4 read with
Section 151 CPC Read With Sections 101/102 Of
The Indian Evidence Act Seeking Dismissal Of
Claim (LIR No. 5729/2016) Along with the
Supporting Affidavit
2. ANNEXURE-A: True Copy of the order dated
22.07.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court
3. ANNEXURE-B: True Copy of the Certified Copy of
the Cross Examination conducted of the
Claimant/Workman
4. Proof of Service
Filed By:

SAAR ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT
F-5, LAJPAT NAGAR -3,
NEW DELHI - 110024
Mob. No.9871603434,
E-mail: [email protected]

NEW DELHI
DATED: 04.01.2024
 BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT 07

ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI

LIR No.5729/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

BRIJESH SINGH …WORKMAN/CLAIMANT

VERSUS

RANBAXY LABAROTORIES LIMITED

…MANAGEMENT/RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XV RULE 4 READ WITH SECTION 151

CPC READ WITH SECTIONS 101/102 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
SEEKING DISMISSAL OF CLAIM (LIR NO. 5729/2016) ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present proceedings were initially filed, upon

reference sent for adjudication by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner Vide order dated 02.02.2011, on the
complaint of the above-named workman/claimant as
suit bearing no. 244 of 2011 in the Hon’ble District &
Session Judge/Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dwarka
Court, New Delhi for reinstating the workman with full
wages and seeking consequential benefits against the
Management/Respondent company.
2. That the respondent has filed its reply/written
statement and craves leave to refer and rely upon the
same as a part of the instant application, as the
contents thereof are not being reiterated for the sake of
brevity.
3. That during the trial, and after the completion of
pleadings, the workman/claimant was directed to file
his evidence on 21.11.2014. Thereafter, the workman
sought repeated adjournments for more than 3 years to
lead evidence without assigning any reasonable cause.
Subsequently, the matter was fixed for further
proceedings i.e., for workman’s evidence on
26.03.2018.
4. That the Claimant/Workman once again failed to lead
his evidence on 26.03.2018, and consequently award
dated 26.03.2018 was passed without any grant of
relief because despite numerous opportunities having
been granted to the workman to file his affidavit of
evidence and despite numerous adjournments having
been taken by the workman the same was not filed for
more than three years.
5. Following the award dated 26.03.2018, the workman
filed two applications on 28.11.2018. The first
application, under Order 9 Rule 9, sought to set aside
the aforementioned award and restore the case. The
second application, under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, aimed to seek condonation for a delay of 241 days
in filing the Order IX Rule 9 application.
6. It is pertinent to highlight that this Hon’ble Court, vide
its order dated 24.02.2022, allowed the aforementioned
applications filed by the workman. However, such
approval was subject to a cost of Rs.7000/-, and
concurrently, a final opportunity was extended to the
workman for presenting evidence on the subsequent
hearing date.
7. That an affidavit by way of evidence of Mr. Brijesh
Singh, the plaintiff was filed.
8. That following the examination in chief of the
workman/claimant, the Counsel for the
Management/Respondent conducted the cross-
examination on 22.07.2023.
9. It is noteworthy to mention that as per the cross-
examination, the plaintiff/workman explicitly expressed
his decision not to examine any additional evidence and
the statement for closure of the evidence was duly
recorded by this Hon’ble Court in its Order dated
22.07.2023. A true Copy of the order dated 22.07.2023
passed by this Hon’ble Court is marked and annexed
hereinafter as ANNEXURE-A.
10. That upon bare perusal and scrutinizing the cross-
examination of the Workman, it can be noted that
several vital admissions have been made by the
workman. The affidavit of evidence as filed by the
workman is liable to be struck off the record in light of
the workman’s statements as recorded in the course of
the cross-examination. The relevant paragraph of the
 cross-examination duly recorded on Page 4 of the
Certified Copy is being reproduced here for the sake of
convenience and ready reference:

“I cannot read English. It is correct that I have

not read my affidavit of evidence i.e. Ex. WW-
1/A. Since I cannot read English. I do not know
the contents of the aforesaid affidavit. It is
incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
It is incorrect to suggest that I was not
employee of management i.e. M/s Ranbaxy
Ltd.”

In light of this revelation, it becomes abundantly clear

that the affidavit of evidence as filed by the
Workman/Claimant lacks credibility and cannot be
relied upon for any purpose. The Workman's explicit
admission regarding having not read his affidavit and
lack of knowledge regarding the contents of the
affidavit, render the said evidence as invalid and
unreliable in the eyes of law. The averments contained
in the said affidavit cannot be accepted as correct. A
True Copy of the Certified Copy of the Cross
Examination conducted of the Workman is marked and
annexed hereinafter as ANNEXURE-B.
11. That in light of the workman’s statements in the cross
examination it becomes unequivocally apparent that
there has been a failure to discharge the initial burden
 of proof. It is further pertinent to mention that the
workman was the sole witness on behalf of the Plaintiff
and no other evidence has been led by the plaintiff. The
proceedings, as reflected in the order and the cross-
examination, underscore a critical deficiency in
establishing the requisite evidentiary foundation,
thereby underscoring the inadequacy of the case to
meet the standards mandated by the aforementioned
legal provisions.
12. That in light of the above, it is asserted that there arises
no need for the Management/Respondent to lead
evidence. The Claimant, having conspicuously fallen
short in discharging its initial burden of proof, renders
any further evidence from the Management redundant.
The evident lack of a substantive prospect for the
claimant to succeed further underscores the futility of
prolonging the proceedings. In the interest of judicial
efficiency and fairness, it is contended that the
claimant's failure to meet the foundational burden
obviates the need for additional evidence from the
Management/Respondent.
13. That it is respectfully submitted that the undisputed
facts, coupled with well-established legal principles and
prevailing judicial precedents, decisively establish the
impossibility for the workman/claimant to secure a
favourable outcome in the event of proceeding to trial,
thereby making the continuation of trial purposeless
and infructuous.
 14. That in the paramount interest of justice and to prevent
the unwarranted consumption of the court's time, it is
imperative that the instant proceedings are dismissed
forthwith on the ground of failure to discharge the initial
burden of proof. This proactive measure aligns with the
principles of judicial economy and ensures the
expeditious resolution of the matter.
15. That the present application is filed bonafide and in the
interests of justice.

PRAYER

Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to:-

a) allow the present application and dismiss the LIR No.

5729/2016 filed by the Claimant/Workman for the failure
to discharge the initial burden of proof ;
b) pass such and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

MANANGEMENT/RESPODENT
THROUGH
SAAR ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT
F-5, LAJPAT NAGAR -3,
NEW DELHI - 110024
Mob. No.9871603434,
E-mail: [email protected]

NEW DELHI
DATED: 04.01.2024

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT 07

ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
LIR No.5729/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
BRIJESH SINGH …WORKMAN/CLAIMANT
VERSUS
RANBAXY LABAROTORIES LIMITED …MANAGEMENT/RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, __________________, S/o _________________, aged ___ years, working as
_____________________ with M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(formerly known
as Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited) having office at
_____________________________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
as under:

1. I am the authorized representative of the Respondent Company,

duly authorized to represent itself in the instant proceedings and
do all acts in pursuance thereof in terms of authority letter
___________. I depose that I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case and, hence am competent to swear
this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application has been drafted and filed by
my counsel under my instructions. I have understood the
contents of the application and the contents thereof are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
 3. That no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has
been concealed thereof.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents

of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this ____ day of January, 2024.

DEPONENT