Delhi District Court
Md. Israr Ansari vs M/S Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1820/17
CNR No. DLCT13-007695-2017
Sh. Mohd Israr Ansari
S/o Sh. Noor Mohammad
R/o H. No. 25, Gali No. 01,
Ganpati Colony, Roshan Nagar,
Ismilepur Road, Faridabad,
Haryana
Through
Sh. S.B. Dubey (General Secretary)
UPLF (Regd. No. 1027)
Front of A-92, Okhla Phase-II,
New Delhi-110020
............ Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd.
E-47/11, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi - 110020
.......... Management
Date of receiving of Reference : 04.07.2017
Date of passing Award : 28.03.2025
AWAR D
1. Vide Reference No.F.24(460)/Lab./SD/2017/13642
dated 30.06.2017, the following Reference was received for
adjudication, from Dy Labour Commissioner, under Section 10
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 1
(1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with
Notification no. S-110011/ 2/75/DK(IA) dated 14.04.1975 and
Notification No. F-1/31/61/616/Estt./ 2008/7458 dated
03.03.2009 in respect of industrial dispute between the Workman
and Management:
"Whether the services of workman Md. Israr
S/o Md. Noor Mohammad have been
terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the
management; and if so, to what relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?"
2. Notice of aforesaid Reference was issued to the
Workman and after service of said notice, Statement of Claim
was filed by workman. The brief facts in narrow compass,
relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present matter, as
stated in his Statement of Claim, are as follows:
i. That the claimant / workman had been working as
a Production Supervisor with M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt.
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Management").
Since 11.09.2005 with his last drawn salary of Rs.
36800/- per month. The workman always did the
work with great hard work and honesty. He never
gave any chance of complaint to the management
during his service period, hence, the tenure of the
workman with the management remained
unblemished.
ii. That on 12.10.2016 vide transfer letter, the
services of the claimant / workman had been
transferred by the management to M/s Sonu Exim
Pvt. Ltd., D-88, Hosiery Complex, Noida, UP and he
was also apprised vide transfer letter that bus had
been arranged by the management so that claimant /
workman could report his duties at the transferred
place. But no alleged bus which was allegedly
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 2
arranged by the management for travelling reached
at the fixed place so the claimant / workman could
not report his duties at the transferred place w.e.f.
12.10.2016 to 17.10.2016. Then the claimant /
workman reported his duties at the transferred place
on 18.10.2016, then his services had been illegally
terminated by the management and also his earned
wages and bonus had been withheld.
iii. That the claimant / workman had sent a Demand
Notice dated 14.01.2017 to the management through
speed post but same was not replied by the
management.
iv. That the workman was constrained to file a
complaint on 11.01.2017 before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Pushap Bhawan, Pushap Vihar, New
Delhi. Pursuant to the said complaint Mr. Sunil
Kumar- Labour Inspector visited the management
institution but despite that claimant / workman had
neither been reinstated nor unpaid dues have been
paid by the management
v. That claimant / workman also filed statement of
claim before Assistant Labour Commissioner but
there also due to adamant attitude of the
management matter could not be settled, hence this
present reference for adjudication before this court.
vi. That the workman is unemployed from the date
of his illegal termination and despite his best
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 3
efforts, he could not get the job elsewhere.
vii. It is prayed by the workman that he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with full back wages and
continuity of his service along with all consequential
benefits arising therefrom and unpaid dues.
3. DEFENCES:
Notice of Statement of Claim was issued to
Management and Management filed its Written Statement in
which allegations leveled in the statement of claim have been
denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. In the
Written Statement, the management raised following defences:
i. That the claim of the claimant / workman is not
maintainable as the claimant / workman has not
come before this court with clean hands.
ii. That the claimant does not come within the
purview of definition of Workman as per the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claimant was the
Production Supervisor drawing the salary of Rs.
36,800/- per month and exercised powers of
a managerial nature. The job profile of
the claimant was to control the tailors during
the course of duty hours, to ensure the
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 4
provision of materials (fabric, bobbin case, proper
sewing machine and allied items) to the tailors
working under him to look over the attendance and
departure of the tailors to control/supervise the
quality of production, assess the conduct of tailors as
well as their production output, to ensure the
productivity by the tailors, fixation of the salary of
the tailors keeping in mind the individual's work
output, to sanction leaves to the tailors, to appoint or
discharge tailors working under him etc. all the
aforesaid works of the claimant are supervisory
duties of managerial nature. It is also stated that the
claimant's functions as production supervisor were
mainly of a managerial nature and he had control as
well as supervision over the work of the workers
working under him. That the management had
arranged for buses and the same were duly plying
and other employees/co-employees of the claimant
availed the said facility. In case, the claimant missed
to get on the bus provided by the management, he
could have easily gotten any other conveyance to
reach the duty place if he really intended to continue
his duty with the answering management. It is also
stated that ever since E-47/11, Okhla Industrial Area,
Delhi became non-functional and all its workers
were either transferred or given their full and final
settlement by the management since then the
claimant had decided to stop working with
management and instead join some other place for
work.
That till September 2016, all payment has been done
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 5
by the management to the claimant. Management
did not receive demand notice dated 14.01.2017 and
claimant never joined his work at transferred place.
. That by filing the present statement of claim, the
workman wants to ascertain unlawful gain at the
cost of wrongful loss the management. There is
prayer for dismissal of the present state of claim.
4. To this Written Statement filed by the Management,
the workman did not file his rejoinder.
5. ISSUES:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed:
1. Whether the services of the workman were
terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the
management and if so, to what relief is he entitled?
OPW
2. Relief.
6. WORKMAN EVIDENCE:
In order to prove his case, the workman stepped into
the witness-box as WW-1. He exhibited his affidavit as
Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Ex. WW1/1 Copy of postal receipt
Ex.WW1/2 Copy of demand notice dated 14.01.2017
Ex. WW1/3 Copy of complaint filed before Assistant
Labour Commissioner
Ex. WW1/4 Copy of letter dated 21.10.2016 written by
workman to the management
Ex. WW1/5 Original postal receipt
Ex. WW1/6 Transfer letter
Ex. WW1/7 Copy of ESIC Card
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 6
Ex. WW1/8 Copy of ESIC Card
Ex. WW1/9 Copy of ESIC Card
Ex. WW1/10 Copy of salary slip
Ex. WW1/11 Copy of statement of claim filed before the
Conciliation Officer
7. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
The Management got examined Sh. Satender Kumar S/o Sh. Rama Shankar Upadhyay as MW-1. He exhibited his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Ex. MW1/1 Authority letter of the witness Ex. WW1/MX-1 Request letter dated 01.06.2009 Ex. WW1/MX-2 Dental certificate of workman Ex. WW1/MX-3 Bio-data form of workman Ex. WW1/MX-1 Copy of appointment letter dated 01.06.2009 Ex. WW1/MX-4 Nomination form of gratuity Ex. WW1/MX-5 Permanent appointment letter issued to workman by management Ex. WW1/6 Transfer letter Ex. MW1/2 Copy of Form No. 11 of EPF Scheme Ex. MW1/3 ESIC Declaration Form of workman Ex. MW1/4 Copy of Form No. 16 of workman Ex. MW1/5 Copy of temporary identity certificate of ESIC of workman Ex. WW1/MX-6 GST of Saba Garments alongwith the name of workman as its Proprietor Ex. WW1/MX-7 Photograph of workman as uploaded on the website justdial Ex. MW1/6 Certificate U/Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 7
08. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
9. The issue-wise findings are as under:-
10. ISSUE No. 11. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled? OPW Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the relationship of employee-employer between the Workman and Management is concerned, the same has been categorically admitted by the Management in its evidence by way of affidavit.
The onus to prove the above-said issue was conferred upon the workman.
It is relevant to pen down here that, the Management has raised one specific objection during the arguments that the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman as defined U/s 2 (s) of the ID Act.
At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that it is admitted fact on behalf of the claimant that he was Production Supervisor as it has been mentioned in affidavit Ex. WW1/A of the workman.
Now, the point which requires to be considered before this Court is whether the claimant falls within the definition of workman as defined U/s 2 (s) of the ID Act or not.
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 Here, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, which read as under:
2 [(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice)employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied,and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 3 [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]"
From the bare perusal of above, it is clear that to squarely fall within the exception of Sec. 2 (ii) in Clause (s) in sub-clause LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 9
(iv), the person must be (a) employed in a supervisory capacity;
(b) draw more than INR 10,000/- as wages; and (c) primarily perform the functions of managerial nature.
It is also worthy to note here that while interpreting this provision, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and Others Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Others, 1994 (5) SCC 737 held that an employee is a workman under the Act if he is employed to do the work of any of the categories, viz., manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. In the other words, if the work of a person did not fall within any of the categories of manual, clerical, supervisory or technical, he would not qualify to be workman.
Now coming to the fact and circumstances of the present case.
MW1-Satender Kumar deposed that the claimant does not come within the purview of definition of Workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claimant was the Production Supervisor drawing the salary of Rs. 36,800/- per month and exercised powers of a managerial nature. The job profile of the claimant was to control the tailors during the course of duty hours, to ensure the provision of materials (fabric, bobbon case, proper sewing machine and allied items) to the tailors working under him to look over the attendance and departure of the tailors to control/supervise the quality of production, assess the conduct of tailors as well as their production output, to ensure the productivity by the tailors, fixation of the salary of the tailors LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 keeping in mind the individual's work output, to sanction leaves to the tailors, to appoint or discharge tailors working under him etc. all the aforesaid works of the claimant are supervisory duties of managerial nature. He also deposed that the claimant's functions as production supervisor were mainly of a managerial nature and he had control as well as supervision over the work of the workers working under him. He also deposed that the claimant was appointed by the answering management on 01.06.2009, at the pay scale of 4358/- per month and after the expiry of probation period, the claimant was permanently employed as Line Supervisor w.e.f. 30.11.2009 and accordingly, his last drawn salary was Rs. 36,800/-. He also deposed that the management had arranged for buses and the same were duly plying and other employees/co-employees of the claimant availed the said facility. In case, the claimant missed to get on the bus provided by the management, he could have easily gotten any other conveyance to reach the duty place if he really intended to continue his duty with the answering management. He also deposed that ever since E-47/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi became non-functional and all its workers were either transferred or given their full and final settlement by the management since then the claimant had decided to stop working with answering management and instead join some other place for work.
On the other hand, the WW1/claimant deposed that he joined the management since 11.09.2005 as Production Supervisor with last drawn salary of Rs. 36800/- per month. He LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 also deposed that he was informed through a letter on 12.10.2016 that the management had shifted to Noida, U.P. and next day i.e. 17.10.2016, he would report for duties on the said address. It was also informed through the said letter that two buses had been arranged to commute to the management institution at above-said given address but the workman could not join duties at shifted place w.e.f. 13.10.2016 to 17.10.2016 as the alleged arranged buses did not reach at the fixed place as apprised by above-said letter and when he reported his duties with the management on 18.10.2016 own his own then his services had been illegally terminated by the management and management also withheld his earned wages.
It is relevant to pen down here that in order to prove that the workman was working in a supervisory capacity, the MW1/management relied upon following documents: (I) Request letter dated 01.06.2009 Ex. WW1/MX1, (2) Biodata form of Workman EX. WW1/MX3, (3) copy of Appointment letter dated 01.06.2009 Mark WW1/MX1 and (4) Permanent appointment letter issued to workman by management Ex. WW1/MX5.
Now coming to the first document i.e. Copy of Request letter dated 01.06.2009 Ex. WW1/MX1.
I have gone through the same. Perusal of same, it is found that it is alleged application applied by the claimant for post of Production Master in the management.
It is relevant to pen down here that above-said document LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 WW1/MX1 was shown to the WW1/claimant during his cross- examination and after seeing the same, the claimant admitted that the aforesaid letter was in his handwriting and same was given by him on 01.06.2009 and voluntarily said that however, he was pressurized by the management to give the aforesaid letter. He also stated that he did not file any complaint against the management for pressuring him to give the aforesaid letter. He denied the suggestion that no complaint was filed by him because the management had never pressurized him to give any such letter.
Here, it is worthwhile to mention here that in Affidavit Ex. WW1/A, nothing has been mentioned by the workman/WW1 regarding the above-said allegation against the management for pressuring him for giving above-said WW1/MX1. Here, it is said that had the management pressurized the claimant to give the above-said WW1/MX1, the claimant would have mentioned the same in his Affidavit EX. WW1/A and definitely would have complaint against the management before the concerned authority.
Now, coming to the next document i.e. Copy of Biodata form of Workman EX. WW1/MX3.
I have also gone through the same. Perusal of same, it is found that it is allegedly Biodata for the post of "Line Supervisor" given by claimant-Mohd. Israr.
It is relevant to pen down here that above-said document Ex. WW1/MX3 was shown to the WW1/claimant during his cross-examination and after seeing the same, the claimant denied LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 the suggestion that he had submitted the aforesaid document with the management. He admitted that the aforesaid document bears his signature at point-A and voluntarily said that the said document was prepared by the management and it was got signed from him by the management. He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid document was prepared by him.
Here, it is worthwhile to mention here that in Affidavit Ex. WW1/A, nothing has been mentioned by WW1/workman regarding preparation of WW1/MX3 by the management and thereafter getting it signed by management from him.
Further, from this document Ex. WW1/MX3, it is crytsally clear that the claimant had applied for the post of "Line Supervisor".
Now coming to the next document i.e. Copy of Permanent appointment letter issued to workman by management Ex. WW1/MX5.
I have gone through the same. Perusal of same, it is found that it is a letter dated 30.11.2019 allegedly issued by the management to the claimant confirming him as permanent employee of the management.
It is relevant to pen down here that above-said document Ex. WW1/MX5 was shown to the WW1/claimant during his cross-examination and after seeing the same, the claimant denied the suggestion that the aforesaid letter was issued to him by the management and the signature at point-A on the aforesaid document was his signature.
LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 Here, it is said that from all these documents, it is clear that the claimant had been working in a supervisory capacity with the management.
It is very very relevant to pen down here that during cross- examination, WW1/claimant stated that he used to supervise the work of the Tailors. He also stated that Tailors and Supervisors used to work under him.
From the above cross-examination, it is crystally clear that the claimant was working in a supervisory capacity and he used to supervise the work of the Tailors and Tailors & Supervisor used to work under him.
It is very very relevant to pen down here that the workman has not stated in his evidence Ex. WW1/A that although, he was working as Production Supervisor but his nature of job was clerical in nature. In order words, it is implied admission of the claimant that he was working in a supervisory capacity.
It is relevant to pen down here that no document has been proved on record by the claimant that although he had been appointed as Production Supervisor but he did not perform the functions of managerial nature.
Further, it is also admitted fact on behalf of the claimant that his last drawn wages/salary was Rs. 36,800/- per month.
It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the Management has successfully proved on record that the Claimant was doing job of managerial/supervisory nature, hence the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman as defined LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 U/s 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Since the Court has given its opinion that the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman as defined U/s 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue no. 1.
Therefore, issue no. 1 is disposed off accordingly.
11. RELIEF:
12. In view of the above observations, Statement of Claim of the workman is dismissed. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms. Copy of Award be sent to Labour Commissioner for publication. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2025.03.29 15:08:44 +0530 Announced in the open Court (REKHA) th on 28 March 2025 Presiding Officer Labour Court - 07 Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi LIR No. 1820/17, Md. Israr Ansari Vs. M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Page 16