claimant was in fact was the employee of Management No.2 M/s Prahari Cyber Security or that he Was deputed by Management No.2 to work at the Community Centre of Management No.1 East MCD, although the Management No.1 has time and again informed the claimant vide its replies under RTI Act (Ex.WW1/3 to Ex.WW1/6) that the claimant Sandeep Goel was not the employee of East MCD. Even the Management No.2 has not led any evidence to prove that the claimant was paid minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act besides facilities of PF and ESIC. Testimony of the claimant that he was employed by Management No.1 as a caretaker at its Samudari Bhawan w.e.f. 1/12/2014 at a monthly salary of Rs. 8000/- on ad-hoc basis and that he worked with the Management for 570 days has gone unchallenged and unassailed. The claimant has filed on record copies of the Attendance Sheet/s for the months from December, 2014 to May, 2015 as Ex.WW1/2 (colly) which is duly signed/verified by Ms. Anita Bali, Building In-charge, Community Service Department, East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Management No.1 has not come forward to rebut the case of the claimant or to show that the documents Ex.WW1/2 (colly) filed by the claimants are false and fabricated. In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the view that relationship of employee and employer between the workman and Management No.1 stands established and the claimant falls within the definition of workman as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council,Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under:
