Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Unknown vs 5.1993. Since Then on 2 July, 2011

        BEFORE THE COURT OF SH RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA
                PO : LABOUR COURT  : KKD : DELHI

                                 ID No.  215/10/98
                         Unique ID No. 02402C0009241998

M/s. Gujrat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.,
6th Floor, Meridian West Tower, 
Windsor Place, 
New Delhi­01.
                                                                           ...........Management

                                             And

Its workman Shri Prem Singh Patwal, 
C/o Cine Employers Association,
780 Balimaran, Delhi­06.
                                                                          ..............Workman

DATE OF INSTITUTION           :                                20.05.1998
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED  :                                30.05.2011
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED    :                                02.07.2011

                                        A W A R D 

1.     This is a reference   sent by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide Order 

No. F.24 (1790)98­Lab./ 15646­50, dated 13.05.98, with the following terms :  

          "Whether   the   services   of   Shri   Prem   Singh   Patwal   have 
          been   terminated   illegally   and   /   or   unjustifiably   by   the 
          management,   and   if   so,   to   what   relief   is   he   entitled   and 
          what directions are necessity in this respect?"


ID 215/10/98                                                                                1/4
 2.      In his claim, it is submitted by the workman that he was appointed by the 

AGM   of   the   management   after   interview   as   a   Peon   on   company   roll   w.e.f. 

01.05.1993.  Since then, he was working with the management against permanent 

post.  The management did not maintain proper service records of its workmen nor 

provided them legal benefits as required by industrial laws.   The workman and 

others   made   a   complaint   to   the   Labour   Inspector   on   13.01.1997   against   the 

management in this regard.    On the complaint, the Labour Inspector visited the 

management and found the complaint to be true.  The Labour Inspector asked the 

management to produce the service records of the workmen on 29.01.1997.   On 

the said date, some officers of the management appeared before Labour Inspector 

and   prayed   for   some   more   time   for   filing   the   record.     The   Labour   Inspector 

adjourned   the   matter   to   17.02.1997.     However,   on   the   very   next   day   i.e 

30.01.1997, the management terminated the services of the workman by refusing 

him to resume his duties without any order in writing and without assigning any 

reason.     Thereafter,   the   workman   went   to   the   management   many   times   for 

resuming his duties but he was not allowed to join.  The workman also lodged a 

complaint   with   the   Labour   Department   and   also   sent   a   demand   notice   dated 

20.02.1997 to the management but the management did not give any reply despite 

service of the said notice.  The last drawn salary of the workman was Rs. 2600/­ 

per month.   He is unemployed since his termination inspite of his best efforts to 

get employment.   The workman prayed for reinstatement with full back wages, 



ID 215/10/98                                                                                   2/4
 continuity of services and all consequential benefits. 



3.      The management appeared before the court and instead of filing its written 

statement,   it  filed   an   application   for   impleading   one   M/s.   Echjay   Construction 

Company as respondent.   The application was dismissed by the then Presiding 

Officer. The order was challenged by the management by filing a Writ Petition bearing No. 7646/99. The Writ Petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swantanter Kumar, Delhi High Court vide order dated 02.12.2004.

4. It has been specifically recorded in the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court that the workman died on 01.06.2004 i.e during the pendency of the proceedings before Hon'ble High Court and his legal heirs were brought on record before the Hon'ble High Court. While allowing Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court directed that the legal heirs of the workman were at liberty to file an amended petition before this court on the next date of hearing and the parties were directed to appear before this court on 17.01.2005.

5. On 02.12.2004, when the order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the next date of hearing before this court was 20.12.2004. However, none has been appearing for the workman after passing of the order dated 02.12.2004, by the Hon'ble High Court, before this court. No amended petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the workman till date as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. ID 215/10/98 3/4

6. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the legal heirs of the workman do not want to pursue the matter and hence a "NO DISPUTE AWARD"

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

7. The requisite number of copies be sent to the appropriate government for publication of the award. File be consigned to record room.

Dictated to the Steno &                         (RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
Announced in the open Court                          POLC­XVII/KKD, DELHI 
on 02nd July, 2011.




ID 215/10/98                                                                                          4/4