IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12384OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

MANOJ KUMAR …....PETITIONER
VERSUS
DELHI BUILDING & OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
WELFARE BOARD AND ANR. ……RESPONDENT
INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
1. SHORT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1
2. COPY OF THE SURRENDER ORDER
DATED 12/01/2021
3. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN DBOCWW BOARD &
ICSIL DATED 04/01/2021
4. VAKALATNAMA

DATE: FILED BY:

PLACE: DELHI

RESPONDENT NO.1

THROUGH
COUNSEL
Adv Abhay Dixit
S-25, DLF Capital Green
Moti Nagar Delhi
M0.9654452476
Advabhaydixit2020@gmail.com
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.12384 OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

MANOJ KUMAR ……PETITONER
VERSUS
DELHI BUILDING & OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
WELFARE BOARD AND ANR. ……RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1

I, Arun Kumar Jha, S/o Sh. Ramchandra Jha, aged about 43
years, currently posted as the Secretary of Delhi Building And
Other Construction Workers Welfare Board,, office at : A-
wing,7th Floor, VIKAS BHAWAN,II,CIVIL LINES,DELHI-
110054 Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the Secretary of Respondent no.1, and as such am

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
am duly authorized and competent to affirm the present
affidavit.

2. This short counter-affidavit is in response to the captioned

writ petition. All the averments made in the captioned writ
petition, unless specifically admitted hereunder, are
categorically denied. The right to file a detailed counter-
affidavit is reserved for the future. That the respondent is
filing the present affidavit in his official capacity and on the
 basis of the information available in the records of the office
of respondent no.1.

3. That the present writ petition is not maintainable and the

petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ as
the he was never been the employee of respondent no.1
and rather an employee of ECSIL i.e respondent no.2
herein.

4. The respondent no.2 is a private firm which provides

requisite man power to government offices. The
respondent no.2 has also provided around 67 outsourced
staff to respondent no.1. The petitioner is one of such out
sourced staff, who was assigned with the task and
responsibilities of Manager Operations by the respondent
no.1.

5. That as the contract was just between the firm (respondent

no.2) and the board (respondent no.1) for providing
manpower. Thus it is “Contract for employment” and not a
“Contract of employment” between petitioner and
respondent no.1.

6. That there were serious allegation of corruption and

professional misconduct levelled against the present
petitioner, during his working period as Manager
operations, North West in Board due to which was
surrendered back by the board to the ICSIL and a request
of his replacement was made as mentioned in letter dated
12/01/2021 which is totally legal as per the para 15 of the
 agreement made by the board and the ICSIL dated
04/01/2021 in which it is clearly mentioned that if any
employee of ICSIL deployed & working in DBOCWW
Board department indulges in any misconduct must be
reported and replaced.

7. That the petitioner’s misconduct was disclosed during the

surprise inspection by the Dy. CM Manish Sisodia dated
12/01/2021 on the Labour Office where Dy CM himself
checked the portal and found out that the there were major
differences in the identification entries of the applicants
made by the petitioner where he had even made an
anomaly in the gender of the applicant and even the
photographs of the applicants were changed by the
petitioner .When the Dy.CM questioned him on these
anomalies he tried to make irrelevant excuses where he
was also informed about many complaints which were
made by the applicants against him during the inspection
for which he had no answers.These mistakes were made
intentionally as the “live photo” system of portal was also
ignored by the petitioner instead of which he tried to make
entries on the basis of backdated photographs which
clearly violates the who safe and secure system of the
registration process of the workers.
8. That the cases cited in the writ by the petitioner are based
upon a certain fact that there the aggrieved parties in those
are the direct employees of the opposite parties
respectively but in this case there is no such circumstances
and the principle of “Contract for employment” and not a
 “Contract of employment” between petitioner and
respondent no.1.
9. That as stated in above facts it was necessary to surrender
the petitioner for the respondents due to this misconducts
and get him replaced due to his misconducts which was
legal as per the agreement made between the respondent
no 1 and respondent no2.
10.That it is further humbly submitted that the answering
respondent shall abide by all the order / directions which
shall be passed by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this the ____ day of January, 2022 that the
contents of the above noted affidavit of mine are true and correct
to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed therefrom nor
anything has been wrongly stated and that their contents are
based on information received and believed to be correct by the
Deponent.

DEPONENT