Delhi District Court
Sh. Sita Ram Pandey vs M/S Ex. Service Men Air Link Transport ... on 27 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
LCA No. : 449/2016
Date of Institution of the case : 13.08.2009
Date on which reserved for order : 27.03.2018
Date on which order is passed : 27.03.2018
Sh. Sita Ram Pandey,
S/o Sh. Ram Dayal Pandey,
R/o H. No.114A, Amrit Vihar,
Burari, Delhi - 110084.
Through: General Mazdoor Trade Union, Regd.,
Purane Shram Karyalaya Ke Samney,
Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019. .......Applicant/workman.
V E R S U S
1. M/s Ex. Service Men Air Link Transport Services Ltd.,
62, Yashwant Palace, Chanakya Puri,
Police Station Chanakya Puri,
New Delhi - 110021.
2. Container Corporation of India Ltd.,
Inland Container Depot, Tuglakabad,
New Delhi - 110020. .......Respondents/managements.
:O R D E R: The applicant/claimant filed the present application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date) interalia claiming an amount of Rs.18,095/. The workman has stated that LCA No.449/2016 Page No.1 of pages 6 workman was working under the management no.1 as a Security Guard since 14.03.2000 on the last drawn salary of Rs.6,000/ per month. The applicant was appointed by the management no.1 and on the instructions of management no.1, he was working with the management no.2, with very honestly and sincerely. The work of applicant was quite satisfactory and he never gave any chance to complaint to the management during his whole service tenure and despite that the management humiliate/torture the applicant on one pretext or other. The other Security Personals were getting HRA but despite orders and repeated demands of workman, the applicant/workman was not paid the HRA from March, 2005 to July, 2005 @ 10% and From August, 2005 to June 2008 @ 15% by the management (the details of said amount is mentioned in AnnexureA, attached with the application). After repeated requests of the applicant, the management had paid the HRA of Rs.2,900/ to the applicant for the period of October, 2006 to December, 2006 and January, 2007 @ Rs.725/. The management has reduced the above said amount illegally and arbitrarily from the bonus of the applicant for the year 20072008, despite the requests of the applicant not to deduct the same, but the management did not give any heed to the said request of applicant. The applicant, alongwith the other workers, demanded the balance HRA and Bonus amount, by way of joint Demand Letter but management neither paid any heed to the said Demand notice nor replied to the said Demand Notice. The management was called by the Conciliation Officer/Bonus Officer for payment of Balance HRA and Bonus Amount but the management flatly refused to pay the same. Hence, the present claim LCA No.449/2016 Page No.2 of pages 6 petition/application.
In its Written Statement to the application of claimant, the management no.1 has claimed that there is no statutory liability on th part of management no.1 to pay HRA as the appointment letter issued to the workman did not contain any commitment on the part of management no.1 to pay the same. The Principal Employer CONCOR DCT has rejected the request of management no.1 to pay HRA and accordingly, the provisional HRA, which was released by the management to the workman has been subsequently recovered by the management by deducting from the bonus component. Further the contract with the Principal Employer was terminated on 25.06.2008. The management has made payments to the workman in compliance of the Minimum Wages stipulated in the DGR Guidelines and there is no default in that respect.
The management no.2 also filed its reply to the application of workman, wherein it is claimed that the present Labour Application/Petition is an abuse of process of Court as there is no employer and employee relationship with the management no.2 ever. Further on 01.02.2006, the management no.2 had entered into an Agreement with M/s ExServicemen Air Link Transport Services Limited (management no.1) to provide workman only on contractual basis for surveillance and operation of the fire fighting system, traffic regulation, control over movement/placement of containers/ cargo and record thereof/arrangement of Domestic Container Depot Okhla, New Delhi, on the various terms and conditions contained therein. Initially, the total period of contract/agreement was for two years, with an extension LCA No.449/2016 Page No.3 of pages 6 clause for another one year. Accordingly, the management no.1 used to provide workman for the services of the management no.2. As per the Contract, management no.1 used to raise bills on or after 5 th day of each English Calendar months, after payments of wages, PF and all other payments due to their employees placed at the site of the management no.2 and then the management no.2 accordingly, used to clear all such bills for the workman employed with it at its Organization/Institute. Further it was upon the Management no.1 to make all the payments to the personnel employed by it with the management no.2 and to abide by all the statutory requirements concerning or dealing with the workman. The management no.2 has cleared all the dues and charges and bills so far raised by the management no.1 in terms of the Contract/Agreement dated 01.02.2006, in case there by any liability or requirement of payment of any dues that has to be paid and cleared by the management no.1 only.
Applicant/Workman filed separate rejoinders to the Reply/Written Statements of managements and controverted the averments made by the managements in their respective Written Statements and reiterated his stand.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the present matter on 13.10.2011: (I). Whether the application U/s 33 C(2) I.D. Act is maintainable? (II). Relief.
And the matter was adjourned for workman evidence for 13.12.2011 and thereafter, number of dates were fixed for leading of workman evidence. Though affidavit of the workman is filed on record, but LCA No.449/2016 Page No.4 of pages 6 same was not tendered in workman's evidence and accordingly Workman Evidence was closed by my Ld. Predecessor on 24.10.2017 and case was fixed for leading of management evidence on 16.01.2018. On 16.01.2018, AR of the Management no.1 submitted that since the workman has led no evidence in his support, so the management no.1 is not willing to lead any evidence in its defence and accordingly, on the statement of AR of Management, evidence of management no.1 was closed vide order dated 16.01.2018 and case was fixed for 29.01.2018 for leading of evidence on behalf of management no.2. On 29.01.2018, time sought on behalf of management no.2 to lead evidence in its defence, and accordingly case was fixed for 15.03.2018, for leading of evidence on behalf of management no.2. On 15.03.2018, it was submitted on behalf of management that since neither the workman nor management no.1 have brought any evidence on record, so the management no.2 is also not willing to bring any evidence and accordingly, evidence of management no.2 was also closed and case was fixed for today i.e. 27.03.2018 for final arguments. Final arguments in the matter heard.
Since the workman has failed to substantiate his claim under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date) as no evidence is led on behalf of workman in the present matter, consequently, the workman has failed to prove that he is entitled to the amount as claimed by him in the petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date), accordingly, the claimant/applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed. The claim of the LCA No.449/2016 Page No.5 of pages 6 applicant/claimant under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date) is rejected.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 27.03.2018 (RAKESH KUMARI)
Presiding Officer Labour CourtX
Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2018.03.31
12:19:58 +0530
LCA No.449/2016 Page No.6 of pages 6