Delhi District Court
Through vs M/S Skygourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd on 16 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - XIX
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No: 741/16
Sh. Azad Singh Negi
S/o Sh. Chattar Singh
R/o: CII, 389/5, IInd Pushta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi - 110090
Through
Airport Employees Union (Regd.)
B.T.Ranadive Bhawan,
13A, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi - 110002
....CLAIMANT
VERSUS
M/s Skygourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd.
Indira Gandhi International Airport Complex
Office: International Airport Approach Road,
New Delhi - 110037
Through its General Manager
....MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 08.10.2012
Date of passing the Award : 16.10.2018
A W A R D
1.A reference dated 31.07.2012 was received for adjudication by this Court which was sent by Dy. Labour Commissioner, under Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of I.D.Act, read with Notification no. F.1/31/616/ESTT./2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009, on a complaint filed by Claimant against the LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10 Management, wherein the following reference was to be answered: "Whether the dismissal of Sh. Azad Singh Negi s/o Sh. Chatter Singh by the management vide orders/ letter dated 09.06.2011 is illegal/ and or unjustified, and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?"
2. Notice of reference was issued to Claimant after which the Claimant had appeared and filed his statement of claim, claiming therein, that vide appointment letter dated 08.08.2005, he was appointed as Team Member 'C' (Production) with effect from 08.08.2005 on the initial salary of Rs. 3,600/ per month. It was further stated that initially he was pointed on probation for a period of six months and was also given the Performance Linked Incentive of Rs. 900/. It was further stated that the management was in Air Catering business and was preparing meals and breakfast and supplying them to air flights. It was further stated that workman used to work for eight hours a day and was made to work in three different shifts. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.04.2006, the total emoluments of workman were increased to Rs.3,900/. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.04.2007, the emoluments of workman were further increased to Rs. 4,800/ and further his performance based incentive was also revised to Rs. 1,200/ from Rs. 1,000/. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.01.2008, management had continued the services of claimant and his appointment was extended for further period LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10 of three years till 01.01.2011. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.04.2008, the total emoluments of workman were increased to Rs. 5,900/ per month and his performance based incentive was revised to Rs. 1,500/ from Rs. 1,200/. He had further stated that vide letter dated 01.06.2009, his total emoluments were increased to Rs. 6,800/ per month and performance based incentive was also revised to Rs. 1,700/ from Rs. 1,500/.
It was further stated that employees of Sky Gourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd had formed Workers Union and informed the Management about the same in October 2009 and the Union had also raised an Industrial Dispute no. 247 of 2010 for regularization of employees of Management and the name of workman was appearing at sl. no. 162 of the said Dispute. The management had threatened him either to stop the Union activities or to face termination of services. On 20.05.2010, when the workman reported for his duty, he was informed by Security Manager Sh. Ghanshyam, that his services have been suspended vide a letter dated 19.05.2010 which was handed over to him. It was further stated that the workman was not issued any show cause notice nor any inquiry was conducted by the management before suspending his services. It was further stated that workman went to collect his salary on 10.06.2010, however, he was paid salary for 19 days only and for the rest of 10 days, he was paid only 50 percent of his salary.LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10
It was further stated that on 08.06.2010, he had received charge sheet dated 28.05.2010 and totally false, fabricated and concocted allegations were levelled against him. It was further stated that vide letter dated 11.06.2010, all the allegations were denied by him and even no police complaint was ever made with regard to allegations as levelled against him in the charge sheet.
It was further stated that on 04.08.2010, the Management had appointed Ms. Jyotica Bhasin as Inquiry Officer and the claimant had also objected to the said appointment as her husband Sh. Amit Bhasin appeared as Counsel for Management. It was further stated that the appointment of Inquiry Officer was only an eye wash and Management was determined to dispense with services of Union leaders and active members of the Union. It was further stated that vide letter dated 31.08.2010, claimant had informed the Inquiry Officer that letters were being sent at wrong address and despite the correct address being available with the Management, the Management did not want the claimant to appear before the Inquiry Officer.
It was further stated that on 16.09.2010 when the workman went to attend the hearing, he found the premises locked where the inquiry was to be held. He had further stated that vide letter(s) dated 05.10.2010, 30.10.2010, LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10 19.11.2010 respectively, the claimant had informed the Management that he had gone to attend the hearing(s) on 04.10.2010, 29.10.2010 and 11.11.2010, but the premises was found locked. It was further stated that vide letter dated 23.02.2011, claimant had informed the Management that charges against him were totally false, fabricated and motivated and had also raised an objection qua appointment of Ms. Jyotica Bhasin as Inquiry Officer.
It was further stated that vide letter dated 09.06.2011, Management had informed Claimant that he was found guilty of charges leveled against him and was dismissed from service with immediate effect.
It was further stated that the workman was unemployed since the date of his termination and had to support his father, mother, wife and two school going children. Hence, a prayer was made for passing of an Award directing the Management to reinstate the workman with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
3. Notice of the statement of claim was sent to the Management which was duly served upon it and Management had also appeared and contested the statement of claim on merits by filing its WS, wherein, it was contended that the Claimant was appointed on fixed term basis for a period 2 ½ years vide appointment letter dated 08.08.2005 LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10 and in terms of his contract of employment, his fixed term appointment was to come to an automatic end on the expiry of his fixed term employment. It was further stated that before the expiry of his fixed term contractual appointment, he was regularized in regular service vide letter dated 01.04.2007.
Regarding other paras which were either not specifically admitted or essentially and purely constituted matter of record, same were denied by it as incorrect.
4. Vide order dated 29.08.2014, ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the following issues :
1. Whether the workman was dismissed from service after a valid and proper departmental inquiry? O.P.M
2. As per terms of reference.
3. Relief.
Vide order dated 14.11.2014, ld. Predecessor had reframed the issue no. 1 as under
1. Whether a proper and valid departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman as per principles of natural justice? O.P.W. This issue was treated as a preliminary issue and parties were directed to adduce their respective evidences on this issue alone.LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10
6. In order to discharge the onus of proving the issues, the workman had appeared as his own witness and filed in evidence, his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A wherein he had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the following documents :
1. photocopy of appointment letter dated 08.08.2005 is Ex.WW1/1;
2. photocopy of the letter dated 08.08.2005 granting performance linked incentive to workman is Ex. WW1/2;
3. photocopy of the letter dated 01.04.2006 is Ex.WW1/3;
4. photocopy of letter dated 14.12.2006 is Ex.
WW1/4;
5. photocopy of the letter dated 01.04.2007 is Ex.WW1/5;
6. photocopy of the letter dated 01.01.2008 is Ex. WW1/6;
7. photocopy of letter dated 01.04.2008 is Ex. WW1/7;
8. photocopy of the letter dated 01.06.2009 is Ex.WW1/8;
9. photocopy of letter dated 20.05.2010 is Ex.WW1/9;
10. photocopy of the letter dated 24.05.2010 informing the Labour Commissioner about suspension of 11 workmen is Ex. WW1/10;
LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 1011. photocopy of charge sheet dated 28.05.2010 is Ex. WW1/11;
12. photocopy of reply dated 11.06.2010 is Ex. WW1/12;
13. photocopy of letter dated 04.08.2010 along with postal receipts are Ex. WW1/13 to Ex. WW1/15;
14. photocopy of letter head of Bhasin & Bhasin Associates is Ex. WW1/16;
15. copy of summons in CS (OS) no. 7670 of 2010 is Ex.WW1/17;
16. photocopy of letter dated 30.08.2010 is Ex. WW1/18;
17. photocopy of the letter dated 08.09.2010 requesting the change of Inquiry Officer is Ex. WW1/19;
18. photocopy of letter dated 16.09.2010 is Ex. WW1/20;
19. photocopy of bus tickets and receipts of STD are Ex. WW1/21 (colly);
20. photocopies of letters dated 05.10.2010, 30.10.2010, 19.11.2010 along with photocopy of postal receipts are Ex. WW1/22 to Ex. WW1/27;
21. photocopy of letter dated 23.12.2010 along with photocopy of the postal receipts are Ex. WW1/30;
22. photocopy of letter dated 23.02.2011 is Ex. WW1/31;
LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10After tendering of his affidavit in evidence, the workman had not appeared in the Court for his cross examination and sought adjournments on one ground or the other. Perusal of the record reveals that on 27.09.2016, the workman had absented himself and matter was posted for workman's evidence on 13.02.2017. Perusal of the record further reveals that on 13.02.2017, the matter was again adjourned for want of AR of workman and on the next two consecutive dates of hearing, ld. Presiding Officer was on leave. On 22.09.2017 again an adjournment was sought by workman as he wanted to file some more documents.
Perusal of the record further reveals that on 07.02.2018, AR for workman was not present and the matter was adjourned for 02.04.2018. On 02.04.2018, again at joint request of both parties citing different reasons, matter was adjourned for workman's evidence as last and final opportunity for 09.07.2018. On 09.07.2018 though last and final opportunity was given, yet, the matter was again adjourned at the specific request of ld. AR for workman as he wanted to inspect the record before tendering the affidavit in evidence.
Vide detailed order dated 29.09.2018, this Court had specifically observed the conduct of workman qua leading his evidence and closed the workman's evidence.
LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10Since the Management did not want to lead evidence in the present matter, the matter was adjourned for arguments and orders for today.
The workman despite being granted numerous opportunities had failed to appear before the Court for his cross examination and hence had failed to prove the issue in his favour. Accordingly, the preliminary issue as framed vide order dated 29.08.2014 and reframed vide order dated 14.11.2014 stands unproved. Statement of claim as filed by claimant thus stands dismissed without calling upon any evidence on other issues as all the aforesaid issues are solely dependent upon this preliminary issue. Other issues are also accordingly answered and decided in favour of management and against the workman. Reference also stands answered accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the Labour Commissioner for publication. Case file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 11.10.2018 Digitally signed by LOKESH LOKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2018.10.20 SHARMA 17:02:13 +0530 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE PRESIDING OFFICER - LABOUR COURT XIX DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI LIR No: 741/16 Page 10 of 10