Delhi District Court
Sh. Daya Ram vs . M/S. Chhabra Industries Did No. 117/09 on 30 April, 2012
Sh. Daya Ram Vs. M/s. Chhabra Industries DID No. 117/09
IN THE COURT OF DR. P S MALIK THE PRESIDING OFFICER
IN
LABOUR COURT XI, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Computer ID No. 02402C0086862009
Type of Case Direct Industrial Dispute
Date of Institution 12.03.2009
Evidence concluded on 16.03.2012
Final Arguments heard 19.04.2012
Date of Award 30.04.2012
WORKMAN Vs. MANAGEMENT
Sh. Daya Ram S/o Sh. Ram Lagan M/s. Chhabra Industries, N - 3
Yadav, C/o Bhartiya Engineering E, Gali No. 9, Anand Parbat, New
& General Mazdoor Union Delhi 5.
(Regd.), Bharat Mill, Charkhi Gate,
Market Plot No. 1, Near D - Block,
Karampura, New Delhi - 110 015.
PRESENT:
None for the parties.
AWARD :-
1. The workman namely Sh. Daya Ram filed this direct industrial dispute before
this court U/S 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the Management M/s.
Chhabra Industries.
2. As per claim the workman Daya Ram was working with the respondent /
Management for 7 years from the date of termination of his services as "Power Pressman". He claimed his last drawn salary as Rs.4000/ per month. The respondent / Management was alleged to be not giving him yearly and casual leaves, appointment letter, bonus, attendance card, wages slip etc. When the claimant / workman demanded all these essential amenities, his services were terminated by the respondent / AWARD Page 1 of 7 Sh. Daya Ram Vs. M/s. Chhabra Industries DID No. 117/09 Management on 01.06.2008. In doing so the respondent / Management did not give him his salaries for the months of April and May 2008.
3. The respondent / Management M/s. Chhabra Industries filed its written statement with a preliminary objection that a full and final settlement was arrived at between the parties on 30.04.2008. The claimant / workman was stated to have issued a full and final receipt and had received his full and final settlement amount. All other material particulars of the claim were denied by the respondent / Management.
4. In this background of the pleadings of the parties, this court vide its orders dated 05.02.2010 framed the following issues :
1. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the Management? OPW.
2. Whether the workman had abandoned his duties after receiving the full and final settlement amount, if yes, from what date and period? OPM.
3. Relief, if any.
5. The claimant / workman Daya Ram examined him as WW1 through his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A and almost reiterated his claim. He relied upon five documents i.e. Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/5. Ex. WW1/1 is the photocopy of the ESI card of the claimant / workman. Document Ex. WW1/2 is a letter written to the Assistant Labour Commissioner by the union of the claimant / workman. Ex. WW1/3 is a report purportedly given by some labour inspector. Document Ex. WW1/4 is a letter written by the claimant / workman to the respondent / Management. Ex. WW1/5 is the postal receipt of document Ex. WW1/4.
6. During his cross - examination the claimant / workman admitted that he had worked only upto 30.04.2008 with the respondent / Management and not thereafter. During his cross - examination, the respondent / Management put a document Ex. WW1/M1x. This is a AWARD Page 2 of 7 Sh. Daya Ram Vs. M/s. Chhabra Industries DID No. 117/09 voucher bearing the signatures of the claimant / workman at its point A. It shows that a sum of Rs.30,000/ was paid to the claimant / workman on 30.04.2008 in the name of 'full and final payment'. But this claimant / workman submitted that he left the respondent / Management without taking money from it. He admitted to have not made any complaint to any authority regarding the irregularities of the respondent / Management. On the date of his cross - examination he stated to be paying a rent of Rs.1100/ per month.
7. The respondent / Management examined one Sh. Neeraj Chhabra as MW1. This witness stressed the same point again that the claimant / workman had received a full and final settlement amount in the sum of Rs.30,000/. He exhibited a document Ex. MW1/1. This document shows statement of account in the ledger book of the respondent / Management M/s. Chhabra Industries, showing that a sum of Rs. 30,000/ was being paid from wages account to the claimant / workman. ISSUE NO. 2 :
8. In this issue this court has to adjudicate upon the factum if the workman had abandoned his duties after receiving a full and final settlement amount, if yes, from what date and for what period.
9. The respondent / Management has relied upon a document Ex. WW1/M1x. This is a voucher showing the payment of Rs.30,000/ to the claimant / workman. The claimant / workman has also admitted his signatures on this document. But he has denied to have received any payment under this document.
10. This court views this document differently. This document Ex. WW1/M1x only shows that an amount of Rs.30,000/ was given to the claimant / workman Daya Ram. In the sidelines it bears a description of being 'full and final payment'. But this document nowhere shows that this full and final payment was regarding the compensation amount and notice pay etc. as it ought to have been paid U/S 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
11. Again it is difficult to get the Management's point that it was a final AWARD Page 3 of 7 Sh. Daya Ram Vs. M/s. Chhabra Industries DID No. 117/09 settlement amount regarding the termination of the claimant's service because this payment voucher is not accompanied by any application for issuing such a settlement amount or any resignation letter showing the intention of the claimant / workman to have entered into such negotiations.
12. This is a bare piece of paper which shows nothing than a mere transfer of money from one hand to the other. The parties and the objective is not clear from this document or from any other ancillary document relied upon by the respondent / Management. The respondent / Management has further filed a document Ex. MW1/1 i.e. a page of ledger book, but this page in itself is an individual page and does not show its situation in relation to the complete ledger of the respondent / Management. Without looking into the complete ledger of the respondent / Management nothing can be said about the authenticity of this single piece of paper.
13. This court is of the view that the respondent / Management has failed to show that there was a fair settlement regarding the termination of the claimant's / workman's service. This document Ex. WW1/M1x coupled with the document Ex. MW1/1 does not show any equitable settlement between the parties. Therefore, this issue is held to be "Not Prvoed" by the respondent / Management. ISSUE NO. 1 :
14. In this issue this court has to adjudicate upon the factum if the services of the workman were terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the Management.
15. The relationship between the parties is an admitted one. The last drawn salary of the claimant / workman is also an admitted fact in this case. The claimant / workman has given a rough approximation of 7 years for which he was working with the respondent / Management. While the respondent / Management could not show or suggest an point of time when this claimant / workman was employed by it. Once the relationship in the nature of 'an employer and an employee' is admitted between the respondent / Management and the claimant / workman, the burden of proof is shifted (as per Section 106 AWARD Page 4 of 7 Sh. Daya Ram Vs. M/s. Chhabra Industries DID No. 117/09 of the Indian Evidence Act) to the respondent / Management to prove the complete service conditions of the employment. The respondent / Management has failed in doing so in the present case. It does not know on which date the claimant / workman started working with it. It has no record regarding the punctuality and attendance of the claimant / workman. It has also not shown that any other working facilities were provided to the claimant / workman. Although the photocopy of an ESI card isavailable on record, but this is not a reliable piece of evidence for two reasons : ➔ it is a photocopy without its original being placed on record; and ➔ it was prepared by the ESI department pursuant to the informations furnished to them by the Management. It is not clear before this court if these informations were provided correctly to that department.
16. Therefore, this court finds this respondent / Management guilty of grave irregularities in keeping the record of this claimant / workman. The same is the position regarding the date of termination fo the service. It is not clear on which particular date and in what particular mode the service of the claimant / workman was terminated. It is correct that the claimant / workman during is cross examination stated at one point that he worked there till 30.04.2008, but on the other point he stated the last date of his working as 01.06.2008. The respondent / Management was not in a position to produce before this court any document in the form of an attendance register or otherwise that his services were not terminated on a particular date and in a particular mode.
17. But at last one inference can be deduced from these circumstances that the services of the claimant / workman were not terminated in an equitabel manner. The claimant / workman was left with a sense of being unattended and deprived. This court, therefore, holds that the termination of the services of the claimant / workman Daya Ram was not through a mutual settlement. It was through some positive act on the part of the respondent / Management. Hence it was a termination as per Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
AWARD Page 5 of 7 Sh. Daya Ram Vs. M/s. Chhabra Industries DID No. 117/09 RELIEF :
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Heath Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana) (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 497 has held that :-
"We have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25 F
(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of employer as nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated."
19. In Krishna Bahadur Vs. Puran Theater, 2004 (103) FLR 146 SC., the Hon'ble Court held that the requirement of Section 25 F (b) the Industrial Disputes Act was imperative. The contravention thereof would render the retrenchment. In the present case there is violation of not only Section 25 F (a) & (b) the Industrial Disputes Act but of Rule 77 the Industrial Disputes Rules also.
20. Following the aforesaid laws laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anoop Sharma (Supra) and Krishna Bahadur (Supra) this court also holds that the retrenchment of the workman in the present matter was wrong. The impugned retrenchment of the workman by the Management was legally defective.
21. As per the aforementioned law, the retrenchment of the workman from services by the respondent / Management is hereby held to be legally defective, and illegal and unjustified. As per the aforementioned law, the retrenchment of the workman from services by the Management is hereby held to be legally defective, and illegal and unjustified.
22. Keeping in view the pendency of this industrial dispute in the court and the age of the claimant and the relationship between the parties, it does not appear feasible to direct the reinstatement of the workman in the services of the Management. However, it appears that the wrong done to the workman can be made good by awarding him an appropriate amount of compensation.
23. This court is of the view that compensation amount should be determined after having regard to the date of appointment, the date of AWARD Page 6 of 7 Sh. Daya Ram Vs. M/s. Chhabra Industries DID No. 117/09 termination, the total length of employment of the workman, his last drawn salary, the present value of rupees as compared to that on the date of retrenchment (i.e. inflation and the devaluation of money) and the circumstances in which he was retrenched.
24. This court after considering all aspects regarding the relationship between the workman and the Management, deems it fit to allow a compensation of Rs.20,000/ to the workman payable by the Management to him along with an amount of Rs.5,000/ as litigation expenses.
25. A copy of this award be sent to the office of the concerned Dy. Labour Commissioner for necessary action.
26. The documents be returned against acknowledgment back to the party which has filed them and further subject to the filing of the certified copies of the same.
27. File be consigned to the record room after completing due formalities. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.2012.
AWARD Page 7 of 7