Delhi District Court
Labour Court/659/1996 on 3 May, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.S. HANDA : POLC : V :
KARKARDOOMA: DELHI.
ID NO. 659/96
BETWEEN
The Management of M/s. Ex.-Servicemen's Airlink Transport Services
Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Indira Gandhi International Airport,
Opposite Terminal-E, New Delhi.
AND
The Workmen C/o Sh. A.S. Yadav, A-19/1, Mahilpalpur Extension,
Gali No. 1, New Delhi-37.
DATE OF REFERENCE : 17.05.96
DATE OF AWARD : 03.05.07
AWARD
The Secretary (Labour) Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi has
referred the Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Court vide Order
No. F.24(1992)/96-Lab./25206-11 dated 17.05.96 in the following
terms of reference :
'Whether the retrenchment of the services of the workmen
whose names appear in Annexure 'A' is illegal and/or
unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?'
Annexure 'A' contains the names of workmen A.S. Yadav,
S.K. Yadav, Ram Kumar, Ram Phal, Om Prakash, Ashok
Kumar, Mehtab Singh, Rama Nand, Manbar Singh, Guman
Singh, Mohinder Singh, S. Chaudhary, Mohabat Singh, Ram
Phool, Udai Singh and Khayali Ram.
/ 2 /
2. Precisely, the case of the workmen A.S. Yadav, S.K.
Yadav, Manbar Singh, Rama Nand, Guman Singh, S. Chaudhary,
Khayali Ram, Ram Kumar, Mehtab Singh, Om Prakash, Ashok
Kumar, Ram Phool, Ram Phal and Mahender Singh is that they were
in the employment of management of M/s. Ex-servicemen Airlink
Transport Services Ltd. and the particulars of the same are as follows :
S.No. Name Date of joining Designation
1 A.S. Yadav 29.01.1987 Supervisor
2 S.K. Yadav 21.05.1991 Supervisor
3 Manbar Singh 19.10.1990 Trolleyman
4 Ramanand 09/06/89 Trolleyman
5 Guman Singh 24.04.1990 Trolleyman
6 S. Chaudhary 09/06/89 Trolleyman
7 Khayal Ram 06/01/90 Trolleyman
8 Ram Kumar 01/07/88 Trolleyman
9 Mehtab Singh 19.11.1990 Trolleyman
10 Om Prakash 19.11.1990 Trolleyman
11 Ashok Kumar 10/09/90 Trolleyman
12 Ram Phool 24.06.1990 Trolleyman
13 Ram Phal 24.04.1990 Trolleyman
14 Mahender Singh 01/01/89 Trolleyman
That all the workmen were duly appointed by the above said
management against the appointment letter duly issued by the Branch
Manager of the management and the nature of services as shown in
the appointment letter is of permanent and not the temporary or ad-hoc
etc. That the workmen were entitled for all the benefits as prescribed
under the law and rules. That in the month of May 1993 the workmen
participated in the trade union activities on which the management got
annoyed. That in the last week of May 1993 the management issued
retrenchment notice to employees with a frivolous plea that their
/ 3 /
contract with the opposite management no. 3 i.e. International Airport
Authority of India is no more as the Authority has terminated the said
contract against which the employed persons were allowed to work
with the said authority. It is claimed that the workmen are entitled to
be reinstated with continuity in service and full back wages.
The workmen namely Mohabat Singh and Udai Singh have
not filed their statement of claim.
3. The management contested the case of the workmen
asserting that the management was given a contract for trolley retrieval
by International Airport Authority of India (Management no. 3) for the
period between 28.7.86 to 27.1.87 which was extended from time to
time. The workmen were employed by the management for the job
which was terminated w.e.f. 31.5.93 by the Principal Employer M/s.
IAAI & therefore the workmen employed by the answering
management for this job were retrenched. That the retrenchment was
lawful and justified as no work remained with the management.
4. In rejoinder the workmen re-asserted their allegations of
claim and controverted the case of management.
5. Upon the pleadings of parties on 15.12.98 following issue
for trial was framed:
1.Relief in terms of reference.
6. Thereafter case was listed for workmen evidence. However vide order dated 31.5.2000 an additional issue was framed :
/ 4 /
1. Whether Sh. A.S. Yadav and Sh. S.K. Yadav are the workmen within the meaning of I.D. Act?
7. To prove their case the workmen namely A.S. Yadav, S.K. Yadav, Mehtab Singh, Ashok Kumar, Dharambir, Sudershan Chaudhary, Ram Phal, Ram Kumar, Khayali Ram, Manbar Singh, Ramanand, Guman Singh, Mahinder Singh, Om Prakash and Ram Phool have examined themselves as WW-1 to WW-15. WW-6 Sudershan Chaudhary, WW-8 Ram Kumar and WW-9 Khayali Ram never turned up for their cross examination. Hence their evidence cannot be looked into. On the other hand management has examined Major Naresh Kumar (Retd.) as MW-1 and relied upon documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/26. The management also examined Mr. Vishnu Prakash as MW-2 and relied upon Annexure 'A'. His cross examination was taken as nil, opportunity given as none responds for the workman and there being no sufficient reason for his non presence, presumption of presence of workman drawn under Rule 22 of The Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.
8. I have heard the ARs for the parties and perused the record. No case law referred or relied upon by either of the party.
9. On my due consideration of material on record; submissions made by AR for parties and relevant legal provisions and case law; my findings on issues are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 1& 2 :
Both the issues being interlinked; for convenience are taken / 5 / up together.
During the course of arguments the status and nature of workmen Mr. A.S. Yadav and Mr. S.K. Yadav has not been disputed and as such they squarely fall within the ambit of 'workman' as enshrined U/s 2(s) I.D. Act.
10. However WW-1 Mr. A.S. Yadav in his deposition admitted that he is already sixty years old. He also admitted that the establishment is a company of the retired army personnels. He also admitted that this company works under the control of Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence (Management no. 4). He also admitted that they were working with the organ of the said Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence who re-employed the retired personnel from the defence, namely Ex-servicemen Airlink Transport Services (EATS). He also admitted that some of the ex- servicemen employed therein held the share of the company. He also admitted that he was offered re-employment. Even the contract was not renewed by International Airport Authority of India Limited, Indra Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi i.e. Management no. 3.
11. Similarly WW-2 Mr. S.K. Yadav also admitted in his cross that he refused the offer of re-employment which was offered to him as Security Guard on the ground that it was temporary post. He further testified that even today he was not ready to accept the job unless it is in continuity with his previous service. He further stated that he was not ready to receive the retrenchment benefits because the case is going on.
/ 6 /
12. WW-3 Mr. Mehtab Singh admitted that contract of Trolley Retrieval at the Airport is not with the employer (EATS) i.e. Management no. 1. He also admitted that the project of management no. 1 is run and controlled by Director General Resettlement i.e. Management no. 4. He also admitted having been offered retrenchment benefits but he stated that he is not ready to accept the same as he wanted permanent employment. In his own words "My displeasure with the company was that they did not employ me for whole of my life".
13. WW-4 Mr. Ashok Kumar admitted that he has received the letter Ex.WW4/M-1. This letter is dated 8.2.95 wherein it was stated that "The management had got earlier contract of Trolley Retrieval Services, at IGI Airport from M/s International Airport Authority of India. That contract was terminated by International Airport Authority of India. Accordingly your services become surplus and you were retrenched from the services of Company in 1993". Therein he was offered alternative employment. He refused to accept the same stating that "my objection was that I was being offered new employment"
whereas in Ex.WW4/M-1 it is not stated that the offer was for new employment. He also admitted that "management no. 1 was organ of management no. 4 for the benefit of retired defence personnels".
14. WW-5 Mr. Dharambir Singh has been cross examined by the management but his name does not figure in the list of workmen about which reference was made. Thus his deposition cannot be looked into.
/ 7 /
15. WW-7 Mr. Ramphal also admitted in his cross that management no. 1 is a project of Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence of retired army personnels. His only grievance was that management did not treat him as permanent workman. He stated that he wanted employment and had no other complaint against the management. Amazingly he admitted in his cross that while his services were terminated he was sixty one years of age whereas retirement age was sixty years. Ironically the age of retirement given in the letter of appointment of the workman was fifty eight years. He also testified that he was not ready to receive the compensation.
16. WW-10 Mr. Manbar Singh also admitted that the project of the management no. 1 is run by management no. 4 i.e. Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence. At the same time he admitted that no workman is under the employment in the Trolley Retrieval Department where he was employed. In the same breath he testified that he was not ready to receive the retrenchment compensation.
17. WW-11 Mr. Ramanand also admitted that no workman was in the said employment of the management no. 1. He also admitted that management no. 1 is a project of Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence. He also testified that he was not ready to receive retrenchment benefits. He further testified that "I am still not ready to accept employment with the management other than in Trolley Retrieval Department".
/ 8 /
18. WW-12 Mr. Guman Singh like WW-10 and WW-11 also admitted that in the management no. 1 no workman was employed and that he was not willing to work anywhere else but the Trolley Retrieval Department. He has also admitted that "I am around sixty one years of age".
19. WW-13 Mahender Singh admitted that the management no. 1 was project of Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence for resettlement of retired army personnels. He evaded to reply that the said management no. 1 was closed as management no. 3 had not extended the contract for management no. 4. He also testified that he wanted permanent employment with the management and has no other grievance. At the same time he admitted having received the letter Ex.WW13/M-1 from the management admitting that he did not join the management as he wanted permanent employment. Ex.WW13/M- 1 is the letter of offer of employment as referred to Ex.WW4/M-1.
20. For the management Major Naresh Kumar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A wherein he testified that "S/Sh. A.S. Yadav, S.K. Yadav, Ram Kumar, Ram Phal, Om Prakash, Ashok Kumar, Mehtab Singh, Ramanand, Manbar Singh, Guman Singh, Mohinder Singh, S. Choudhry, Ram Phool, Udai Singh, Khayali Ram were with us in Trolley Retrieval Department. S/Sh. S.K. Yadav, A.S. Yadav were working as Supervisors and others were working as Loaders/Trolley Retrievers. The employees used to work all three shifts at both the Airports, Domestic as well as International (IGI Airport, Palam, New Delhi). That Trolley Retrieval Department / 9 / was a function of International Airport Authority of India. The contract was awarded by them from time to time. It was extended from time to time till it was terminated by the authority in terms of their letter dated 4.5.93 Ex.MW1/1. In fact they had sounded us earlier and we had also informed all the concerned persons around 15.04.1993 that their services will not be required w.e.f. 01.06.1993 due to possible non-renewal of contract. The contract was finally terminated w.e.f. 31.05.1993 midnight. Accordingly all the persons working there including those mentioned in the order of reference were separated and none of them was reemployed thereafter. No other person was ever employed in place of any one of them. All the effected persons were offered/paid of retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before 31st May, 1993. All except the concerned persons in this dispute have collected retrenchment compensation and other legal dues and settled all their claims with the management completely and finally. The management had all along been ready to pay all the dues payable as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to all the concerned workmen. However, the persons concerned did not collect the dues inspite of various reminders including the offer before Conciliation Officer as well as before Hon'ble Court. That the concerned persons did not raise any demand against the employers for about 2 years. Thereafter they filed a case before Conciliation Office at Karampura. The employers submitted their reply vide letter Ex.MW1/2. That the employers offered employment to all the concerned persons during the conciliation proceedings, which they flatly refused. The employers also offered them re-employment in terms of their letter dated / 10 / 08.02.1995 sent to the all concerned persons copies of which are Ex.MW1/3 to 1/17. It was replied by them vide letter dt. 8.3.95 & 4.3.95 through their counsel Sh. Q.H. Khan, Advocate flatly decline the offer. Copies of these letters are Ex.MW1/18 & Ex.MW1/19. Employers' replied to the workmen's letter dated 3.4.95 vide letter dated 15.4.95 (Ex.MW1/20) again offering re-employment. It is addressed to Mr. Q.M. Khan, Representative of the workmen. The contract with Container Corporation of India is still continuing. Copies of the letter dated 15.4.95 were sent to all the concerned persons under registered cover. None of them accepted the offer even after that. Receipts of Registration of these letters to individual person are Ex.MW1/21 (Colly.). That Sh. A.S. Yadav and S.K. Yadav were again offered the post of Security Supervisors in terms of employers' letter dated 03.6.95 Ex.MW1/22(a) & 22(b). Both of them declined the offer. That I say the agreement dated 01.8.79 between Gen. Manager of AIIA and EATS is Ex.MW1/23, Letters dated 25.4.86, 21.8.86, 11.9.86, 7.1.87, 8/14.2.87, 11.2.87, 11.5.87, 15.6.87, 6.11.87, 01.6.89, 04.7.89 of International Airports Authority of India, New Delhi is Ex.MW1/24 (Colly.). That the age of retirement in the company is 58 years. Most of the concerned persons have already crossed it. Ex.MW1/25 is the copy of the circular issued by Head Office fixing the age of retirement. Specimen copy of appointment letter is enclosed as Ex.MW1/26. That the offer for work in Security department at Airport Authority of India was again given to concerned persons on 25.4.2005 before Hon'ble Court. However, they again declined it. The company is still ready to offer the post of Security Guard to all or any one of them who are not above the age of 58 years / 11 / and fit to perform work as security guard".
21. The management also examined MW-2 Mr. Vishnu Prakash who also tendered document Annexure 'A'. He had testified that "the services of all the concerned workmen were terminated on account of closure of the trolley retrieval department. The department was closed down due to non renewal of contract with Airport Authority of India now known as DIAL (Delhi International Airport Limited)". Testimony of MW-2 has gone unrebutted.
22. The analysis of evidence led by the parties in view of the submissions made and material on record shows that all the workmen were ex-defence personnels. The management no. 4 i.e. Director General Resettlement, Ministry of defence is a welfare body constituted for resettlement of the retired army personnels. It was share holding of the retired defence personnels and representing the interest of retired defence personnels for employment. It was running a project by the name of M/s Ex-Servicemen Airlinks Transport Service Ltd. the management no. 1. The workmen were employed with the said management no. 1. The age of superannuation of the workmen was fifty eight years. The management no. 4 was given contract by management no. 3 to run Trolley Retrieval Services at Indira Gandhi International Airport between 28.07.86 to 27.1.87. It was extended from time to time. However this contract was terminated w.e.f. 31.5.93 by the management no. 3. As a consequence thereof the project of management no. 1 has to be closed. As is evident from the letter of employment to each of the workman the re-
/ 12 / employment was offered in the old project of the management. It is not in dispute that some of the workmen joined the re-employment whereas some of them got the retrenchment benefits. The workmen before this court were given offer of re-employment or in the alternative retrenchment benefits. As discussed above the workmen before this court did not accept the re-employment or the retrenchment compensation. As discussed above Mr. A.S. Yadav and Mr. Ram Phal were already above the age of superannuation. However some of the workmen had sought for permanent employment in the Trolley Retrieval Department i.e. Management no. 1 which no more exists. Whereas all of them were offered reemployment or in the alternative retrenchment compensation. This is what the law provided for and the management no. 4 constituted for their benefit could do for them. In this perspective the workmen having denied the offer of re- employment at the best could collect their retrenchment compensation. Accordingly the issues are answered to the effect that the workmen before me have failed to prove that their services by the management no. 1 were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably.
23. ORDER :
In the light of my above discussion the workmen are not entitled for any relief. However they are at liberty to collect as undertaken by Major Naresh Kumar present in the court their 'retrenchment compensation' within thirty days of the order if so desired or they are at liberty to recover money due to them at appropriate forum.
/ 13 / Since the workmen namely Mohabat Singh and Udai Singh have not filed their statement of claim; a no dispute award is passed in their case.
A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for its publication.
File be consigned to record room.
Dated: 03.05.07 ( S.S. HANDA )
PRESIDING OFFICER:
LABOUR COURT-V:
DELHI.