Delhi District Court
When The Workman Kept On Pressing His ... vs National Fertilizers Ltd. And on 9 September, 2020
Page 1 of 14
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT ROUSE AVENUE COURTS , NEW DELHI
Direct Industrial Dispute No.2025/2016 (New) & Old DID No:57/2015
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN:-
Sh. Anjani Kumar S/o Late Sh. Khaman Singh (Gunman)
Through Delhi Pradesh Sharamik Sangh (Regd),
C-1/140, Sanjay Enclave, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059 .....Workman
VERSUS
Management of M/s Kushal Suraksha & Allied Services
Private Limited, Plot No:5, First Floor,
Durga Mandir Complex, Matiala Extn,
New Delhi-110059
Police Station Bindapur, Uttam Nagar .....Management
Date of Institution :26-02-2015
Date of Arguments :07-09-2020 (Through VC)
Date of Award :09.09.2020 (through VC)
AWARD
1. The workman herein has filed the present direct industrial dispute against the above said
management Under Section 2A (2) of Industrial Dispute Act.
VERSION OF THE WORKMAN AS PER THE CLAIM:
2. The case of the workman as stated in the claim is that he was working as "Gun Man" with the
management for the last about two years and his last drawn salary was Rs.9,000/- per month.
His record was unblemished and he worked very honestly with the management. According to
workman he was not being paid minimum wages as per the Government Rules and when in
March, 2014, he demanded increase in salary, receipt of PF and bonus etc., the management got
annoyed and threatened him to through out of the service. The management wanted him to sign
on certain blank papers but he refused and on this management became very angry with him.
Page 2 of 14
When the workman kept on pressing his above stated demand of increase in salary etc., the
management terminated the services of the workman illegally on 01-04-2014.
3. The claimant is stated to have requested the management many time to take him back in
services but the management did not take him back on services nor his dues were paid by the
management despite repeated requests. Workman sent a demand notice to the management
through registered post on 13-05-2014 but he did not get any reply of it from management. He
again sent a demand notice through his union which was also not answered by the management
till date. Thereafter, the workman filed a complaint against management through his union in
the office of Labour Office on 28-05-2014 but due to the adamant behavior of the management
the matter could not be settled there and the Conciliation Officer gave his failure report which
is filed along with the claim herein. The Workman has prayed for reinstatement of his services
with full back wages and all other consequential benefits and allowances etc.
REPLY OF THE MANAGMEENT AS PER THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:
4. The Management filed its written statement and raised preliminary objections that the workman
has not come to this court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this court
hence his claim is liable to be dismissed. As per the WS the claimant was deployed at Oriental
Bank of Commerce, MRV School Branch, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi from 13-04-2012 to
31-03-2014 and was being paid Rs.9500/- instead of Rs.9000/-. The security contract of the
workman was terminated by above named bank w.e.f. 31-03-2014. The claimant met with the
new security contractor at that site and continued as Gunman at the same site with new security
contractor M/s Vikash Joshi Security Agency and thus left the employment of the management
on 31-03-2014. The claimant has received all his dues from the respondent on 02-04-2014 and
had signed full and final amount receipt. The management as denied that the services of the claimant was satisfied and unblemished. It is also denied that he was not being paid minimum wages as per government rules. It is further denied that claimant ever asked for increase of his salary etc. It is submitted that although the claimant was not entitled for PF yet the management deposited his PF regularly but the claimant never approached the management for his PF. It is denied that the management forced the workman to sign on some objectionable documents. It is further denied that the management was annoyed by the workman-herein for not signing on the documents. It is further denied that management terminated his services illegally. It is stated that the claimant is trying to extract money from the management illegally. It is reiterated that Page 3 of 14 the claimant left his job of his own as he did not want to change the place of duty and joined the new Contractor as stated above. In the Labour Office when the management showed all the documents and the matter was closed as the demand of the claimant was not found genuine due to those documents. It is also denied that the Conciliation proceedings failed due to the non- cooperation of the management. It is stated that the claim of the workman is false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
REPLICATION OF THE WORKMAN
5. In his replication the workman has reiterated the contents of claim and denied the averments made by the management in the written statement/reply.
FRAMING OF THE ISSUES:
6. The following issues were framed on 19-02-2016:-
Issue No.1: Whether the workman has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, if so, its effect ? OPM Issue No.2:Whether the workman was deployed by the management at Oriental Bank of Commerce, MRV School Branch, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi from 13-04-2012 to 31-03-2014 and was being paid salary of Rs.9500/- per month and security contract of the respondent was terminated by the bank w.e.f. midnight of 31-03-2014, if so, its effect ? OPM ISSUE No (3) Whether the claimant/applicant met with a new Security Contractor at that site and continued as Gunman at the same site with new Security Contractor and left the employment of the respondent/ management on 31-03-2014 of his own and joined the employment of another Security Contractor i.e. M/s Vikash Josh Security Agency (V.J.Security Agency), if so, its effect? OPM ISSUE No. (4) -Whether the services of the workman were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably? OPW ISSUE No. (5) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim ? OPW ISSUE No.(6) Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE WORKMAN
7. The Workman has been examined as WW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is exhibited as Ex.WW1/A. The documents relied upon are :
Page 4 of 14a. Ex.WW1/1 & Ex.WW1/2 : the original I.Card issued by the management. b. Ex. WW1/3 is original ESIC card.
c. Ex.WW1/4 is copy of demand notice.
d. Ex.WW1/5 is original postal receipt.
e. Ex. WW1/6 is second demand notice Dt. 26-07-2014 sent through Union and duly signed by workman.
f. Ex. WW1/7 is original postal receipt.
g. Ex. WW1/8 : copy of claim filed before the Conciliation Officer. h. Ex. WW1/9 is the report given by the Conciliation Officer. i. Mark A is a deployment letter dt. 13-04-2012 and j. Mark B is the copy of complaint submitted to the Labour Department.
8. No other witness was examined by the workman and the AR of workman closed his evidence on 16-05-2017.
EVIDENCE OF THE MANAGEMENT:
9. The management-herein has relied upon the following documents:
a. The Photocopy of certificate of incorporation by Registrars of Company under the Company Act 1956 is Mark B. b. The photocopy of Registration Certificate of Establishment with the Department of Labour, Govt of NCT of Delhi is mark C. c. Photocopy of work order of Oriental Bank of Commerce dt. 30-01-2020 is Ex. MW2/M1 (OSR).
d. Photocopy of appeal order dt. 02-08-2018 issued by PIO Spcial Branch, Delhi is Ex.
MW2/M2 (OSR- Objected to the mode of proof as same does not bear the logo or stamp of Delhi Police.
10. The witnesses examined by the management-herein are :
a. MW-1:Sh. Jai Prakash, Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dwarka, Sec-13. b. MW-2 :Sh. Kushal Pal Singh, Director of M/s Kushal Suraksha & Allied Services Pvt.Ltd , c. MW-3 :Seema Pal, Accountant of management, filed his evidenciary affidavit Ex.MW3/A. Photocopy of account statement of Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e. Management Bank account is Ex. MW3/1 (OSR).
d. MW4 :Sh. Jai Hind Prasad, Field Supervisor has also been examined by management, who filed his evidence by way of affidvite Ex.MW4/A.
11. (No other witness was examined by management and AR of the management closed his evidence on 04-10-2018.) Page 5 of 14
12. I have heard the final arguments and perused the records. My findings on the issues are as under:-
13. Issue No.2:Whether the workman was deployed by the management at Oriental Bank of Commerce, MRV School Branch, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi from 13-04-2012 to 31- 03-2014 and was being paid salary of Rs.9500/- per month and security contract of the respondent was terminated by the bank w.e.f. mid night of 31-03-2014, if so, its effect ? OPM The management has asserted that the workman-herein was employed on contractual-basis and was deployed at Oriental Bank of Commerce, MRV School Branch, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi from 13-04-2012 to 31-03-2014 and was being paid Rs.9500/- instead of Rs.9000/-. The Bank terminated the contract w.e.f. 31-03-2014. The management-herein has premised its case on the basis that the employment was contractual which came to an end and the management cleared claimant's monthly wage of Rs.9,500/- per month The witness MW-1 (Sh. Jai Prakash, Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce) stated that the requisite documents were not with their branch and even the details of the documents had not been given by the management correctly and now the nature of documents disclosed by the AR of the management may be available at the Cluster Office at E-Block, Harsha Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Opportunity was given to the AR of the workman to cross examine this witness but he did not cross examine this witness MW-1.
The management has examined Sh. Kushal Pal Singh (Director of M/s Kushal Suraksha & Allied Services Pvt. Ltd.) as MW-2, who filed his evidenciary affidavit Ex.MW2/A and he relied upon already exhibited documents Ex.WW1/M1 and Ex. WW1/M2 and the copy of the document earlier marked as Mark X1 and original of the same is Ex.MW2/1 and letter dt. 27-02-2014 Ex.MW2/2 and Mark A. It was stated by him that document mentioned as Ex. DW1/F in para No:6 of his affidavit in evidence has not been placed on record by him.
The workman has been cross examined by the AR for the management. In his cross examination the workman stated that he joined the management on 13-04-2012, assigned duty at Oriental Bank, Dwarka Sector-13, New Delhi. He also admitted that management Page 6 of 14 was awarded contract for providing security personnel in the bank. He voluntarily deposed that management was also having contracts with other banks. In that regard it will be appropriate to say that the workman-herein had the knowledge of the nature of his contractual employment. It is not the case of the workman-herein that the contract between the management-herein and the Oriental Bank of Commerce was a "sham agreement". The workman has sought his absorption by way of reinstatement despite the contract coming to an end.
The witness MW-2 has admitted that the management of "M/s Kushal Suraksha Bal"
is a proprietary concern since 2004 or 2005 and is registered with the Labour Department and also under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act. As far as the management-herein i.e. "M/s Kushal Suraksha & Allied Services" is concerned the same is admittedly registered with the Labour Department and the Registrar of Companies. It was further stated by the witness MW-2 that the management-herein "provided deployment of security staff services, including the gunman to the various companies including the Bank". Admittedly the workman was appointed only till the contract lasted between the management-herein and the concerned bank. However, "no document in writing to that effect was executed." The photocopy of the work order dated 30.01.2010 of Oriental Bank of Commerce" was adduced as evidence Ex. MW-2/M-1 (OSR). Thus the management-herein has been able to cut ice in view of the documents:
a. MARK A is the deployment letter dated 13.04.2012 issued by the management for the deployment of the workman-herein the workman-herein was stationed as the armed security guard;
b. Ex. MW-2/M-1 (OSR) which evidences the fact that vide letter of extension dated 30.01.2010 the annual contract was extended by the Oriental Bank of Commerce regarding the hiring of the Ex-Servicemen Armed Guards for the branches of the said bank. The original documents were adduced as evidence though OSR (Original Seen and Returned) mode.
c. MARK MX is the letter ref No. ROD / Security / 260 dated 27.02.2014 vide which the Oriental Bank of Commerce had informed the management-herein about the removal of the security guards w.e.f. 31.03.2014 from the said bank as per the terms of engagement.
EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION NO-LICENSE AS PER CLRA Page 7 of 14 To a question whether MW-2 possessed the document of registration of the company under the Contract Labour (Abolition Act) 1973, the MW2 answered that the registration under this act was required only when more than 20 employees are employed at one particular site of a company. MW2 further admitted that they have provided security guards in Dwarka Court premises which were more than 20 guards. It was also stated by MW2 that he did not remember whether appointment letter was given to workman or not. On a question whether he has given any letter to the workman informing that the services of workman was not required, the MW2 stated that no such letter was given to workman, however, he was verbally told by the supervisor. The said witness MW-2 in his cross examination stated that his firm was registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act and he had also got it registered under Contract Labour Act and he could not produce the certificate to that effect. He also stated that his firm was registered with Registrar of Companies.
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act), 1970 regulates the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith. The main object of this Act is to prevent the exploitation of contract labour and to ensure as well as introduce better conditions of work. It should be well pointed out at first that there exists a fine line of difference between contract labor and direct labor. A workman who has been hired by a contractor for working in an establishment can be termed as a contract laborer.
Under section 7[1] of the CLRA, the Principal Employer who is engaging the contract labours needs to obtain the Registration certificate. On the other hand, under section 12[2] the Contractor who is supplying labours to the Principal Employer need to obtain CLRA License. The Registration/licensing is only a regulatory measure and it does not create any privilege in favour of contract workers (refer General Labour Union (Red Flag) v. K.N. Desai, reported in 1990 LLR 208 (Bom.), Steel Authority of India v. Steel Authority of India Contract Workers' Union, reported in 1990(64) FLR 573 (Karn.) and Dinanath v. National Fertilizer Limited, reported in 1992 LLR 46 (SC).
The effect of non-registration on part of the principal employer who is engaging the contract labours has been dealt with in "Dena Nath And Ors vs National Fertilizers Ltd. And {1992 AIR 457, 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 401} where the question was whether the failure of the Page 8 of 14 'Principal Employer' of obtaining registration u/s 7 CLRA and whether the failure of 'Contractor' of obtaining license u/s 12 CLRA would result in the 'workman' being the deemed employee of the 'principal employer' it was held:
"The only consequences provided in the Act where either the principal employer or the labour contractor violates the provision of Sections 9 and 12 respectively is the penal provision, as envisaged under the Act for which reference may be made to Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. We are thus of the firm view that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because contractor or the employer had violated any provision of the Act or the rules, the Court could not issue any mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer...... We are of the view that the decisions of the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court are correct and we approve the same."
The management has also examined MW3-Seema Pal, Accountant of management, who filed his evidenciary affidavit Ex.MW3/A. Photocopy of account statement of Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e. Management Bank account is Ex. MW3/1 (OSR).
Through cogent evidence through preponderance of evidence the management herein has been able to prove that that the workman was deployed by the management at Oriental Bank of Commerce, MRV School Branch, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi till 31-03-2014 and was being paid salary of Rs.9500/- per month and security contract of the respondent was terminated by the bank w.e.f. 13.04.2012 to midnight of 31- 03-2014. The effect is that the employment was contractual which co-existed with the engagement of services between the management-herein and the bank.
In view of the above discussions, the ISSUE No.2 is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
14. ISSUE No (3) Whether the claimant/applicant met with a new Security Contractor at that site and continued as Gunman at the same site with new Security Contractor and left the employment of the respondent/ management on 31-03-2014 of his own and joined the employment of another Security Contractor i.e. M/s Vikash Josh Security Agency (V.J.Security Agency), if so, its effect ? OPM Page 9 of 14 This issue No.3 relates to the next question that arises is whether the claimant-herein
- not claiming from the principle employer and claiming from the contractor - was the continuing employee of the contractor-management-herein. Generally, the relationship of employer-employee needs to be gone into. If the management is able to prove that the workman had left the employment by joining the other contractor then the claimant-herein will not be entitled to the relief of reinstatement etc. In order to prove that the workman had approached other contractor for his employment The management-herein has placed the following documents on record:
a. Ex.MW-4/MARK-A: Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) dt. 25-01-2016 issued by the Dy. C.P. to the workman-herein for employment in Fireball Securitas and Consultancy Pvt.
b. Ex.MW-2/M2 which is the "APPEAL ORDER" whereby the RTI information was provided to the management-herein that the PCC No. SB 2016007666 was issued to Sh. Anjani Kumar (workman-herein) s/o Sh. Khamam Singh for employment in Fireball Securitas and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 1899 2nd Floor, Uday Chand Marg, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New delhi-110059.
The witness MW4 Sh. Jai Hind Prasad, Field Supervisor has also been examined by management, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW4/A. He has relied upon the document i.e. Police clearance certificate dt. 25-01-2016 mark MW4-A. In his cross examination MW4 has stated that he has come to court to depose at the instance of management-company. He had no power to issue appointment letter to any employee, however, he used to depute the employees to the place of their working. It is stated by him that he had no documentary proof that workman had started working at the bank through M/s Vikas Josh Security Agency. However, it is stated by him that being the Supervisor he had seen the workman working at the bank on 01-04-2014 during his field visit at the bank.
The cross-examination of witness MW-3 (Ms. Seema Pal - Accountant with the management) leads credence to the version of the management-herein as she has stated in her cross-examination:
"(Vol. after the contract of management was terminated with Oriental Bank of Commerce on 31.3.2014, new security company i.e. M/s Vikas Joshi Security was deployed and the workman joined that company.) Page 10 of 14 "It is correct that the workman has also worked in Fireball Securita and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. as gunman. As per the police clearance certificate dated 25.01.2016, the said fact is mentioned in that and the document is already on court record."
The management has been able to show that the workman had continued as security guard even after the contract of the management-herein had come to an end on 31.03.2014. The document Ex.MW-4/MARK-A: Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) dt. 25- 01-2016 {issued by the Dy. C.P.} proves the version of the management-herein that the workman-herein was in the employment in Fireball Securitas and Consultancy Pvt. After leaving the job of the management-herein. The version of the management-herein is further strengthened by the document Ex.MW-2/M2 which is the "APPEAL ORDER" whereby the RTI information was provided to the management-herein that the PCC No. SB 2016007666 was issued to Sh. Anjani Kumar (workman-herein) s/o Sh. Khamam Singh for employment in Fireball Securitas and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 1899 2nd Floor, Uday Chand Marg, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New delhi-110059. Whether it is M/s Vikash Josh Security Agency or M/s Fireball Securita and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. the effect is that the workman left the management-herein after a valid termination of an arrangement. Thus the said contract coming to an end will not entitle the workman-herein to be the employee of the management-herein.
Thus the Issue No.3 is decided in favour of the management-herein and against the workman-herein.
15. ISSUE No. (4) -Whether the services of the workman were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably? OPW Though it has been adequately proved by the management-herein that the workman- herein had left the job, this ISSUE No.4 relates to whether the mode of discharge / disengagement was justifiable particularly vis-à-vis the payment of the salary etc. The management-herein has asserted that the claimant was given final amount by proving the following documents:
a. Ex.WW-1/M1 is receipt dt. 01.03.2014 payment of Rs.9,500/- (Gross pay) b. Ex.WW-1/M2 is receipt dt. 01.04.2014 of wages Rs.9,500/- Gross Rs.9,194/-
By way of Ex.WW-1/M1 and Ex.WW-1/M2 the salary of the workman was cleared and the receipt was issued to the workman-herein. The witness MW-2 has admitted that only Page 11 of 14 salary amount for the month of March-2014 was given and no other amount was given. He further admitted that workman was given the deployment letter dt. 13-04-2012 which is already placed on record as Mark A. The workman has admitted that till he remained in the services of the management, he had been getting his salary as well as other facilities on time. He also admitted that he received the payment for the month of February & March 2014 as per wage sheet, copies of which are Ex. WW1/M1 and Ex. WW1/M2 but same did not bear his signature. WW1 again said that his salary was used to be credited into his bank account. He denied that Ex. WW1/M1 and Ex. WW1/M2 bears his signature at point A. The cross-examination of witness MW-3 (Ms. Seema Pal - Accountant with the management) leads credence to the version of the management-herein as she has stated in her cross-examination about the process of clearing wages of the workmen as and when the concerned contract came to end. The said witness has also categorically said that the clearance of the pending wages were the final payment to the workman-herein. While exhibiting the account statement as Ex.MW-3/1 the exact words of the said witness, in response to a question, were:
"Since I am working at the office of the management and looking after the administrative work. I do not go physically at the bank where the security staff is deployed by the management, however, I prepared the attendance sheet and the tenders for the management and the salaries given to the workmen is also prepared by me. Therefore, I am fully aware that the workman was deployed at the Oriental Bank of Commerce by the management....
...As stated above the preparation of tender and maintenance of account was part of my duty, so whenever any contract was terminated, the same received by me for all the correspondence related to that.
...Q. Is it correct that only salary of the workman for the month of March, 2014 was credited into the bank account of the workman?
Ans. It is correct. (Vol. The said amount of Rs.9,194/- credited in the account of workman 03.04.2014 is the full and final settlement amount.) It is not the case of the workman-herein that the contract between the management-herein and the bank was a sham contract. It is also not the case of the workman-herein that the management-herein and the Oriental Bank of Commerce are acting in unison in order deprive benefits to the worker(s). The management has been able to prove that amount paid was the salary which was cleared as the terms of the engagement between Page 12 of 14 the management and the bank came to the end. Thus it was a clearing of amount towards the 'contract' which came to an end. In view of the facts & circumstances that the management- herein had not terminated the services of the claimant-herein.
Thus the ISSUES No. 4 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
16. Issue No.1: Whether the workman has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, if so, its effect ? OPM And ISSUE No. (5) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim ? OPW In view of the facts & circumstances that the management-herein has been able to prove by preponderance of evidence that the contract between the management-herein and the bank came to an end on 31.03.2014and further that the claimant-herein had joined another contractor Fireball Securitas Pvt. Ltd. the ISSUES No.2 & 3 have been decided in favour of the management and against the workman. The crux of the matter is that the workman-herein joined some other contractor. The management-herein has submitted written arguments which have been covered in the discussions-herein above. Thus the ISSUES No.1 & 5 are also decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
17. ISSUE No.(6) Relief.
All the issues are decided in favour of the management and against the workman. Thus the workman is not entitled to any relief. ISSUE No.6, too, are disposed of accordingly. Claim of the claimant is dismissed. Reference is answered as per the relief granted. Matter Disposed of Accordingly. A copy of the award be uploaded on the website of RADC. A copy of the same be also delivered to both the parties as well as to the concerned Department through electronic mode or through Dak, if possible. File be consigned to Record Room.
18. Announced as per the advisory / orders of the Hon'ble High Court vide its order/letter No.R-235/RG/DHC/2020 DATED 16-05-2020 and the Amended Protocol Letter Page 13 of 14 No:24/DJ/RADC.2020 dated 07-05-2020 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge (PC-Act),CBI, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi.
Announced through Video Conferencing.
Dated:09.09.2020 ( VEENA RANI ) Presiding Officer Labour Court Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi Judge Code : DL0271 Page 14 of 14 IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ROUSE AVENUE COURTS , NEW DELHI Direct Industrial Dispute No.2025/2016 (New) & Old DID No:57/2015 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN :-
Sh. Anjani Kumar S/o Late Sh. Khaman Singh (Gunman) Through Delhi Pradesh Sharamik Sangh (Regd), C-1/140, Sanjay Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 .....Workman VERSUS Management of M/s Kushal Suraksha & Allied Services Private Limited, Plot No:5, First Floor, Durga Mandir Complex, Matiala Extn, New Delhi-110059 Police Station Bindapur, Uttam Nagar .....Management Date:09.09.2020 Present : Authorized representative of workman Through VC.
Sh. Jasbir Chaudhary, AR for management through VC. Clarification done. Heard.
Vide my separate detailed AWARD dictated and announced, the claim of the claimant-herein Sh. Anjani Kumar S/o Late Sh. Khaman Singh (Gunman) is dismissed. A copy of the award be uploaded on the website of RADC. A copy of the same be also delivered to both the parties as well as to the concerned Department through electronic mode or through Dak, if possible. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:09.09.2020.
( VEENA RANI ) Presiding Officer Labour Court Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi Judge Code : DL0271