Delhi District Court
The Workmen vs The Management on 4 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL: POIT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. No. 171/05
The Workmen
Sh. Virender Singh others,
Represented by Okhla Industrial Workers Union,
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh Opp. Kalkaji Bus Depot Govindpuri,
New Delhi-19
Versus
The Management
M/s Manav Bharti India International School,
Malviya Ngar,
New Delhi-17
Date of institution: 19.09.2005
Date of reserving Award: 20.03.2012
Date of Pronouncement: 04.04.2012
AWARD
1. Workmen have raised the present industrial dispute through Union
and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in following terms of reference:-
''Whether S/Shri Virender Singh & Others as
shown in Annexure 'A' are entitled to annual
increment @ 15% of their wages and if so what
I.D. No. 171/05 Page 1 of 19
directions are necessary in this respect ?"
"Whether the said workmen are entitled to one set
of winter uniform and two sets of summer uniform
and if so what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
"Whether the said workmen's demand of
arragement of free education to their school going
children is justified and if so what direction are
necessary in this respect ?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workmen,
wherein it is stated that that workmen working on different posts, with the
management are the member of Okhla Industrial Workers Union (Regd.)
and have authorized Mr. L.P. Tiwari, General Secretary of the union to
initiate legal proceedings for their demands; that on behalf of workmen, the
union sent a General Notice dated 18.08.2003 to the management, wherein
it was contended that more than 20 workmen/employees working with the
management and being the members of the union are being deprived of
these demands and are being harassed and victimized, which amounts to
unfair Labour Practice; that the following General Demands were placed
before the management for consideration through the demand Notice :-
(i) All the employees should be given earned
leave, casual leave, leave encashment, leave book and
the benefit of P.F.
(ii) All the employees should be given their
salaries as per minimum wages notified by the Govt.
from the date of their appointment and arrears thereof.
I.D. No. 171/05 Page 2 of 19
(iii) The employees, who have not been issued
with their identity cards, should be given the same
immediately.
(iv) All employees should be given the annual
increment of 15% in their salary.
(v) Every employee should be given duties of 8
hours only and if the employees agrees & the
management takes duties more than 8 hours, the
overtime wages, double of the normal wages be given
to them.
(vi) All the employees be given leisure of lunch
hour.
(vii) All the employees should be provided with
uniform for summer and winter.
(viii) All the employees should be given bonus for
the period 2001-2002 at the rate of 20% and for further
period also.
(ix) All the employees i.e. 4th class staff should be
provided with a room or place where they could keep
their uniform and lunch etc. and they could take their
lunch and could relax themselves.
(x) The employees should be designated as per
their works and duties and the salary be given as
assigned to the posts.
(xi) The children of the employees should be given
free education.
3. It is further stated in the statement of claim that with regard to the
I.D. No. 171/05 Page 3 of 19
some of the demands, the management entered into a settlement dated
14.10.2003 with the employees but the same is yet to be translated into
practice; that General Demand Notice was received by the management
but the management neither adhered to the demands raised by the workers
nor responded to the said demand notice; that in the compelling
circumstances the worker through the union approached to Labour
Department Govt of NCT of Delhi by way of filing statement of claim; that
the management adopted its adamant approach and did not participate into
the conciliation proceeding, resultantly, the present reference has been
referred for adjudication; that the management has not provided the legal
facilities like appointment letters, earn leave, casual leave, attendance
register, pay slip, leave book, ESI, Bonus etc. and when the workmen
demanded the aforesaid legal facilities, they were threatened and coerced;
that workmen are covered under Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes
Act; that the workmen are entitle to the annual increment @ 15% or their
salaries which may not be less than the minimum wages notified by the
Govt; that workmen are entitled to one set of uniform for winter season
and two sets of uniform for summer season; that the children of workmen
are entitled to get free education in that institution and the management has
deprived this facility to the school going children of the employees in gross
violation to rule, regulation, policy and laws pertaining to education of the
Govt of NCT of Delhi and that of the Central Govt; that all the demands of
the workmen are genuine and bonafide and the same may be granted to
them by way of the award in the present reference. It is prayed that an
award, directing the management to accept and implement the general
demands with all consequential benefits thereof, be passed.
4. Management of M/s Manav Bharti India International School has
I.D. No. 171/05 Page 4 of 19
filed written statement taking preliminary objections that present reference
has been made by the Secretary (Labour), Govt of NCT of Delhi, who has
no legal and valid delegation of power in its favour to refer the dispute to
this Tribunal and in the absence of the same the whole reference is liable
to be rejected being without jurisdiction; that M/s Manav Bharti India
International School is a duly recognized by the Director of Education,
Govt of NCT of Delhi and duly affiliated with CBSE; that "M/s Manav
Bharti India International School is a 'school' as defined under the Delhi
School Education Act, 1973; that the union viz. Okhla Industrial Workers
Union who have raised the dispute on behalf of the claimants has no legal
and valid authorization in favour to raise the dispute on behalf of workmen
and the alleged union has neither any authority nor has locus standi to sign
and verify the statement of claim qua the employees of the management;
that in the present case, there is no legal and valid demand notice has been
raised by the claimants to the management prior to filing of statement of
claim; that there is no legal and valid espousal as required under the law;
that the school is being run on the basis of fee which has been received
from the student and thus, the school has no capacity to pay higher
emolument apart from the fact that the claimants are already having service
condition better than other school in the region; that the Manav Bharti
India International School is a 'school' as defined under the Delhi
Education Act, 1973 and dispute, if any can be resolved under the Delhi
School Education Act, 1973, and the provisions of Industrial Dispute need
not be invoked; that as per Section 2 (h) of the Delhi School Education
Act, 1973, 'employee' means a Teacher and includes every other
employees working in a recognized school; that section 10 of the School
Education Act, 1973 stipulates that the pay and allowances, medical
I.D. No. 171/05 Page 5 of 19
facilities of a recognized private school shall be not less than those of
employee of the correspondent statute on school run by appropriate
authority; that Section 11 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 stipulates that the administrator shall, by notification, constitute a Tribunal to be known as the Delhi School Tribunal for the purpose of disposal of an appeal preferred under the Act, and Tribunal shall have the same powers as vested in a court of appeal by the Code of Civil Procedure; that Section 15 of the said Act provides for contract of service including scale of pay and other allowances, leave etc. Hence, the provison of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted in so far the employees of Manav Bharti India International School are concerned. It is stated that union has no locus standi to raise any dispute much less an industrial dispute in respect of the employee of the school. It is further stated that the claim of the claimants is based upon the so called settlement, which is in fact no settlement as contemplated in the statute and rules made there-under and the same will not be binding on the parties under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
5. Management, in his reply on merit, has denied that the general notice dated 18.8.03 has been sent to the management, as vaguely alleged. It is denied that the management has harassed, victimized and adopted any unfair labour practice as alleged by the claimants. It is alleged that union is bent upon to disturb the industrial peace and harmony and create nuisance with the organization for their individual gains. It stated that the management is providing earned leave, casual leave to its employees as per their entitlement. It is submitted that the management has extended all facilities as prescribed under the law to all the eligible employees, therefore, the demand of the claimant for providing earned leave, casual I.D. No. 171/05 Page 6 of 19 leave, leave book and the benefit of PF is wholly uncalled for and beyond the terms of reference. It is stated that the management is providing salary to its employees at par Minimum Wages prescribed by the Govt of NCT from time to time. It is submitted that none of the comparable organization is providing the benefit to the children of employees for free education as claimed by the claimants from the management. No settlement arrived between the management and the claimants. Therefore, reliance made by the claimants settlement is wholly uncalled for. It is denied that the claimants have not been provided legal facilities like appointment letter, earned leave, casual leave, attendance register, pay slip, leave book, ESI, as vaguely alleged. It is stated that the claimants have been provided all statutory benefits/facilities what they are entitled under the law. The management has prayed for rejecting the statement of claim filed on behalf of the claimants.
6. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the workmen, wherein the the contentions made in the written statement have denied and the contents of statement of claim have been reiterated.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor on 20.07.2006 :-
1. Whether the workmen are covered under the Delhi School Education Act & this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try this case ?
2. Whether the cause of the workmen has been duly espoused ?
3. Whether the statement of claim has been signed by a duly authorised person ?
4. Whether the workmen shown in Annexure 'A' are I.D. No. 171/05 Page 7 of 19 entitled to annual increment @ 15% of their wages ?
5. Whether the workmen are entitled to one set of winter uniform & two sets of summer uniform ?
6. Whether the demand of workmen for arrangement of free education to their school going children is justified ?
7. Relief.
8. Workmen (i) Sh. Jiya Lal, (ii) Sh. Suresh Pradhan, (iii) Sh.
Virender Singh, (iv) Sh. Ravinder Gaur, ((v) Sh. Chiranji Lal, (vi) Smt. Namita, (vii) Sh. Shyam Lal, (viii) Sh. Raju, (ix) Sh. Prem, (x) Sh. Janeshwar, (xi) Sh. Vinod, (xiii) Sh. Bhagwan Gaur, (xiv) Sh. Mangal Mohan, (xv) Sh. Sheel Kumar, (xvi) Sh. Anil, (xvii) Sh. Ramesh & (xviii) Sh. Naresh Chaudhary have filed on record their affidavits.
9. Workmen have examined WW 1 Sh. Jiya Lal, WW 2 Sh. Suresh Pradhan, WW 3 Sh. Virender Singh, WW 4 Sh. Ravinder Gaur, WW 5 Sh. Chiranji Lal, WW 8 Sh. Raju, WW 9 Sh. I.P. Tiwari & WW 15 Smt. Omwati. In their affidavits, WW 1, WW 2, WW 4, WW 5, WW 8 & WW 15 have deposed that they have been employed with the management and are member of Okhla Industiral Workers Union; that the management did not provide the legal facilities to them; that the union sent a General Notice dated 18.8.2003 to the management for the demands raised by them; that the management entered into an agreement dated 14.10.2003 and agreed to provide some legal facilities but the same have not been provided; that they have been working with the management with utmost devotion and diligence and have not given any chance of complaint to the management; that the contents of statement of claim may also be read as part of their affidavits. WW 3 Sh. Virender Singh, in his I.D. No. 171/05 Page 8 of 19 affidavit filed in examination-in-chief has deposed that he has been engaged with the management on the post of Machine Operator since 22.05.1998 on the salary of Rs. 4300/- per month and was illegally terminated from service on 10.05.2005. He has deposed that he is a member of Okhla Industrial Workers Union and the union has espoused the present cause and has served Demand Notice dated 21.05.2005 to the management. He has further deposed that he was paid Rs. 4300/- per month and overtime wages were used to be detained by the management on the assurance that the same would be given later on and when he requested for the dues and facilites, his services were terminated without show cause notice. He has deposed that the management got his signatures on several blank papers, stamped and unstamped and blank vouchers. He deposed that the management instead to provide the legal facilities, terminated his services. He has deposed that the management did not pay him earn salary of April & May 2005 and earned leave, arrears of minimum wages, bonus etc.
10. WW 9 Sh. L.P. Tiwari, General Secretary of Okhla Industrial Workers Union, in his affidavit filed in examination-in-chief, has deposed that he has been authorized by workers of M/s Manv Bharti India International School to proceed the matter on behalf of workmen before concerned labour officer/court by issuance of authority letter dated 15.08.2003. He has deposed that after authorizing him, he had sent a demand notice to the management dated 18.08.2003 on behalf of workers. He has further deposed that after that he filed a statement of claim before Conciliation Officer.
11. In cross-examination, WW 1 Sh. Jiya Lal has admitted that he had filed a writ petition bearing no. 9119-9129 of 2006, subsequent to I.D. No. 171/05 Page 9 of 19 present reference claiming therein benefits of 5th pay commission. He has also admitted that he is getting wages according to 5th Pay Commission from September 2007 onwards. He has deposed that he is not getting winter or summer uniform except on one or two occasions. He has admitted that his one child studies in the school of the management.
12. WW 2 Sh. Suresh Pradhan, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he was one of the petitioners in the writ petition bearing no. 9119-9129 of 2006, filed subsequent to present reference, claiming therein the salary and benefits of 5th pay commission recommendations. He has deposed that at present, he is not working in the school. He deposed that he did not gett winter or summer uniform except on one occasion. He has admitted that he has filed a contempt application for violation of its order.
13. WW 3 Sh. Virender Singh, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he had filed a writ petition bearing no. 9119-9129 of 2006 subsequent to present reference claiming therein benefits of 5th pay commission. He has denied the suggestions that he is getting wages according to 5th Pay Commission from September, 2007 onwards and wages according to 6th pay commission w.e.f. April, 2009. He deposed that he is not getting winter or summer uniform except on one occasion. He has admitted that he did not give any application in writing for admission of his children in the school.
14. WW 4 Sh. Ravinder Gaur, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he had filed a writ petition bearing no. 9119-9129 of 2006, subsequent to present reference claiming therein benefits of 5th pay commission. He has also admitted that he is getting wages according to 5th Pay Commission from September 2007 onwards. He deposed that he is not getting winter or summer uniform except on one or two I.D. No. 171/05 Page 10 of 19 occasions. He has admitted that his one child study in the school of the management.
15. WW 5 Sh. Chiranji Lal, in his cross-examination, has deposed that presently he is not working in the school. He has denied the suggestion that any inquiry was held against him regarding misconduct. He has admitted that he was supplied winter and summer uniform twice by the school.
16. WW 8 Sh. Raju, WW 9 Sh. L.P. Tiwari, General Secretary of union & WW 15 Smt Omwati have been examined-in-chief but have not been cross-examined. Rest of workmen have not been examined.
17. Management has examined Sh. H.P. Mishra, Senior Accountant as MW 1, relying upon documents Ex. MW 1/1 to Ex. MW 1/6. In his affidavit, he has deposed that Manav Bharti India International School is a private, unaided, non-minority and recognized school; that the management/administration of the school, including terms and conditions of service of its employees, are governed by the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973; that subsequent to the present industrial dispute, 11 employees (claimants herein) filed a Writ Petition bearing No, 911909129 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; that in terms of the order dated 12.10.2007, passed in the said writ petition, the management school filed an affidavit stating therein at para (h) that the School be permitted to make the payment as per Section 10 of DSEAR without prejudice to rights and contentions in defending the pending industrial dispute before this Tribunal; that claimants on the roll of the School, as of date, are getting benefits of Section 10 of DSEAR/Vth Pay Commission recommendations since September, 2007; that in view thereof, terms of reference have become infructuous; that benefit of I.D. No. 171/05 Page 11 of 19 school uniform was available to the claimants in the past; that the Principal of the respondent school vide office order dated 15.02.2009 has continued the said benefit in future; that benefit of free education at entry level to children Class-IV employees was available in the past; that the Principal of the School, vide order dated 15.02.2009 has continued the said benefit in future; that claimants are now being paid salary and benefits as per VIth Pay Commission Recommendation w.e.f. April,2009; that the claimants have been paid 60% of the arrears as per Vth Pay Commission Recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.2006. He has further deposed that in view of aforesaid, the present industrial dispute does not survive and is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
18. In cross-examination of MW 1, he has deposed that management provides uniform to all the workers. He has admitted that workers are not allowed to get 15% annual increment in their salary. He has denied the suggestion that management is taking benefits from the government by showing admission of poor children. He has deposed that there is provision of free education to children of employees at elementary level to 12th class. He has denied the suggestion that the management is not providing facilities of EL. CL, sick leave, PF etc to its employees.
19. No arguments are submitted for workmen I have heard arguments from Sh. R.K. Vats, Ld. Counsel/AR for the management. I have perused the entire record including also written arguments filed for management.. My findings on the issues are as under:-
20. Findings on issue 1 Issue no.1 is "Whether the workmen are covered under the Delhi I.D. No. 171/05 Page 12 of 19 School Education Act & this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try this case ?"
Management has taken plea in preliminary objection of written statement that this dispute is to be resolved and dealt with under the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the rules framed there-under and the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 cannot be invoked. However, neither any evidence has been led on this issue on behalf of management nor the same has been pressed during arguments.
21. Section 25 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 provides as below:-
No civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in relation to which the Administrator or the Director or any other person authorised by the Administrator or Director or any other officer or authority appointed or specified by or under this Act, is empowered by or under this Act to exercise any power, and no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act.
22. It is worth noting that though Industrial Tribunal has trappings of court, it is not a civil court. Accordingly, Section 25 of Delhi Education Act, 1973 is not applicable to Industrial Tribunal and it can adjudicate the dispute if an employer is industry, if employee is workman and if dispute is an Industrial Dispute.
23. In Banglore Water Supply Vs. A Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even a University would be an industry although such of its employees as are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act, may not get the desired benefits to which a workman in industry may be entitled.
24. On the anology of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that school is an industry.
25. Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act defines the term I.D. No. 171/05 Page 13 of 19 "workman". The said section, as amended, is reproduced as below :-
"Workman" means any person (including and 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, or the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 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 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.
26. Since, the complainants/workmen in the present case are Group 'D' employees who are not employed in a managerial or administrative capacity or supervisory capacity, they are 'workmen' as defined in the said section of Industrial Disputes Act.
27. Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act defines the term "industrial dispute". The said section is reproduced as below :-
"industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.
28. Since, present dispute is between employer and workmen and since, it relates with the conditions of labour, it is an industrial dispute.
29. In view of above proposition of law, it is held that this Tribunal I.D. No. 171/05 Page 14 of 19 has jurisdiction of adjudicate in the present dispute. This issue is decided accordingly.
30. Findings on issue no.2 Issue no.2 is "Whether the cause of the workmen has been duly espoused?" Management has taken preliminary objection that Okhla Industrial Workers Union which has raised the dispute on behalf of claimants has neither legal and valid authorization in favour to raise the dispute on behalf of claimants nor the alleged union has any authority or locus standi to sign and verify the statement of claim qua the employees of the management.
31. It is worth noting that workmen have not proved on record espousal of their dispute by Okhla Industrial Workers Union, even though they may have been members of the said union.
32. In M/s Payen and Talbros Ltd., vs Hans Raj and others DLT 1968 Vol. IV Page 130 it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:-
The language of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act in itself is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee but having regard to the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which it was enacted and the use of the word "workmen" in this definition clause, industrial dispute has been construed by the courts to mean a collective dispute, i.e. a dispute where workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make a common cause with the individual workman and raise a demand. It would not appear that the condition of an espousal or of a body or a considerable section of workmen making a common cause with the particular dispute arises only when individual dispute per se is of the nature of an inividual dispute concerning a particular workman as opposed to collective dispute involving all the workmen. Where the dispute which was referred to the Tribunal related to gratuity scheme sought to be introduced for the benefits of all the workmen employed in a particular company, it was per se an industrial dispute. No espousal or support was needed for such a dispute.I.D. No. 171/05 Page 15 of 19
33. The above judgment implies that espousal is not necessary in case of bulk workmen. Therefore, even if there is no proper espousal in this case, the same will not affect the case of the workmen adversely. Issues no.2 is decided accordingly in favour of workmen and against the management.
34. Findings on issue no.3 Issue no.3 is "Whether the statement of claim has been signed by a duly authorised person?" WW 9 Sh. L.P. Tiwari, General Secretary of Okhla Industrial Workers Union has proved on record documents Ex. WW 9/A and Ex. WW 9/B, which are copies of authority letter dated 15.08.2003 signed by workmen in his favour and general demand notice dated 18.08.2003 issued to the management respectively. In view of the above documents, it is held that the statement of claim has been signed by duly authorized person. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of workmen and against the management.
35. Findings on issue no.4 Issue no. 4 is "Whether the workmen shown in Annexure 'A' are entitled to annual increment @ 15% of their wages ?". It is admitted case of the parties, that subsequent to the present reference and industrial dispute, claimants filed a writ petition bearing No 9119-9129 of 2006 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, claiming therein the salary and the benefits as per the Vth Pay Commission Recommendation.
36. MW 1 has deposed in his affidavit that in terms of the order dated 12.10.2007, passed in the above writ petition, the management School filed an affidavit, stating therein at para (h) that the School be permitted to make the payment as per Section 10 of DSEA without prejudice to rights and contentions in defending the pending industrial dispute before this I.D. No. 171/05 Page 16 of 19 Tribunal. He has deposed that the claimants on the roll of the School, as of date, are getting benefits of Section 10 of DSEAR/Vth Pay Commission Recommendation since September, 2007. MW 1 has further deposed that the claimants are now being paid salary and benefits as per 6th Pay Commission Recommendation w.e.f. April, 2009 and claimants have been paid 60% of the arrears as per the Pay Commission Recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.2006. MW 1 has proved on record the copies of wages registers Ex. MW 1/ 2 (Colly.)for months of September, 2007, July, 2008 and January, 2009. MW 1 has also proved on record the receipts Ex. MW 1/6 (Colly) of the payment of arrears to claimants.
37. Workmen have also admitted in their cross-examination that they are getting salary and benefits as per 5th Pay Commission Recommendation since September, 2007 and also getting salary and benefits as per 6th Pay Commission Recommendation w.e.f. April, 2009.
38. It is worth noting that 6th Pay Commission Recommendation, itself includes annual increment. Since, payment of wages as per 6th Pay Commission Recommendation has been admitted by the claimants/ workmen, there is no justification to claim 15% annual increment separately, over and above the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission. Hence this issue is decided in favour of management and against the workmen.
39. Findings on issue no.5 Issue no. 5 is "Whether the workmen are entitled to one set of winter uniform & two sets of summer uniform ?"
40. MW 1 has deposed in his affidavit that the benefit of school uniform was available to the claimants in the past. MW 1 has proved on record copies of Receipts Ex. MW 1/3 (Colly.) of uniforms by claimants.
I.D. No. 171/05 Page 17 of 19Workmen has also admitted in their cross-examination that they have got winter or summer uniform on one or two occasions.
41. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the management, it is stated that the benefit uniforms was being provided to workmen in the past and shall be continued in future also. A certificate dated 13.10.2008 issued by the Principal of Manav Bharti India International School has been placed on record, in which at Para 2 it is mentioned that "all Group D Employees are given a set of summer and winter uniform." Accordingly, in view of admitted position, the management is directed to give to those workmen, out of workmen mentioned in Annexure 'A', who are presently employed with the management, one set of winter uniform & two sets of summer uniform per academic year w.e.f. the date of enforcement of this award.
42. Findings on issue no. 6 Issues no. 6 is "Whether the demand of workmen for arrangement of free education to their school going children is justified?" The management has submitted in his written submission that free eudction to school going children was available in the past and shall be continued in future also. In the certificate dated 13.10.2008 issued by the Principal of the Manav Bharti Indi International School, it is mentioned at para 3 that "Wards of the employees of the Institution are provided with the additional benefit of free education in the Institution, whosoever applies at entry level. In view of this admitted position, the management is directed to provide free education to the wards of those workmen, out of workmen mentioned in Annexure 'A', who are presently employed with the management, if the concerned workman applies for the same at entry level. This issues is decided accordingly.
I.D. No. 171/05 Page 18 of 1943. Relief In view of my findings on above issues, workmen are not provided with the following relief/relieves as sought under terms of reference :-
(a) As regard claim of workmen for 15% annual increment.
Further, in view of the findings on issues no 5 & 6, the claimants/workmen are provided the following relief/relieves under terms of reference :-
(a) The management is directed to give to those workmen, out of workmen mentioned in Annexure 'A', who are presently employed with the management, one set of winter uniform & two sets of summer uniform per academic year w.e.f. the date of enforcement of this award.
(b) The management is directed to provide free education to the wards of those workmen, out of workmen mentioned in Annexure 'A', who are presently employed with the management, if the concerned workman applies for the same at entry level.
44. Award is passed accordingly and reference is answered in the above terms.
45. Copy of this award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 04.04.2012. (MAHAVIR SINGHAL) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Karkardooma Courts, Delhi I.D. No. 171/05 Page 19 of 19