Delhi District Court
Sh. Guru Parshad vs M/S Skypak Service Specialists Ltd on 16 July, 2009
ID No.78/07
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K. KAUSHIK
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. XII
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
ID No. 78/07
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN
Sh. Guru Parshad
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Parshad
C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
170 Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji
New Delhi - 110 019
.........Workman
AND
M/s Skypak Service Specialists Ltd.
L357, Mahipalpur Extension,
National Highway 8,
New Delhi
.........Management
Date of institution : 24.12.2007
Date of argument : 01.07.2009
Date of award : 16.07.2009
AWARD
1.An Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s Skypak Service Specialists Ltd. L357, Mahipalpur Extension, National ID No.78/07 2 Highway 8, New Delhi and its workman Sh. Guru Parshad S/o Sh. Rameshwar Parshad C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji New Delhi - 110 019 was referred by Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for adjudication in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (in short Act) vide his Order No. F.24 (1264)/2006/Lab./594347 dated 13.12.2007 with the following terms of reference:
"Whether services of Sh. Guru Parshad S/o Sh. Rameshwar Parshad have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Notice of the reference was issued to the workman. Despite service of the notice workman did not file his statement of claim. Accordingly Ld. Predecessor passed a nodispute award dated 22.1.2008. Thereafter ID No.78/07 3 workman moved an application for setting aside no dispute award. Ld. Predecessor set aside no dispute award vide his order dated 18.2.2008. Workman filed his statement of claim alleging that he was working as Operation Assistant since 7.7.1992 on last drawn monthly wages of Rs.3050/; that he was discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of the management; that management was not providing him statutory benefits like attendance card, leave book, overtime, increment, travelling allowance, house rent allowance, bonus etc. and when he raised a demand for the same, management got annoyed with his demands and stopped paying his earned wages w.e.f. 1.2.2005 and did pay his earned from 1.2.2005 to 28.3.2005; that management obtained his signatures on blank stamped vouchers and terminated his service on 29.3.2005; that a demand notice dated 24.2.2006 was sent through UPC to which no reply was given; that conciliation proceedings failed as management did not appear; that since then he is unemployed and could not get any service despite his best efforts. Workman claimed that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. ID No.78/07 4
3. Notice of the claim was issued to the management. Management appeared and filed written statement. By way of preliminary objections management alleged that the claim of the workman is barred by the principle of resjudicata and in view of award dated 22.1.2008 workman cannot institute any claim against the management. Management stated that workman has misled the court and his claim is liable to be dismissed. However management did not reply on merits. Management was given an opportunity to submit its reply on merits but despite that it did not file its written statement on merits and rather its AR absented from the proceedings and accordingly management was proceeded ex.parte.
4. In ex.parte evidence workman filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He relied upon five documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/5.
5. I have heard authorized representative for the workman and have gone through the record.
ID No.78/075
6. Workman has deposed in his affidavit that he was working with the management as Operation Assistance since 7.7.1992 and his last drawn wages were Rs.3050/ per month. He also deposed that when he demanded for legal benefits management got annoyed and terminated his service on 29.3.2005 after obtaining his signatures on blank papers and vouchers. He also deposed that his earned wages from 1.2.2005 to 28.3.2005 were not paid. Workman has not filed any document in support of his claim of being an employee of the management. However, it is to be noted that management in the written statement did not allege that workman was not its employee. Thus, I have no reason to disbelieve the deposition of the workman in his affidavit that he was in the service of the management as operation assistant since 7.7.1992. Workman has also deposed that his service was terminated illegally by the management on 29.3.2005 and management did not pay his earned wages for the period from 1.2.2005 to 28.3.2005. Since management is ex.parte, I have no reason to disbelieve this testimony of the workman. I therefore hold that it stands established that management illegally terminated the service of the workman.
ID No.78/076
7. Now coming to the question of relief. AR for workman submitted that award of compensation would not be the appropriate relief because workman had rendered a continuous service of more than 12 years and by his reinstatement he would be entitled to service benefits like gratuity, PF contribution of the employer and several benefits which workman would not get through compensation. He also submitted that the establishment of the management is in full swing and so reinstatement of the workman would be the proper relief. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the AR for workman I hold that reinstatement would be the appropriate relief under the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly I order the management to reinstate the workman.
8. Now coming to the question of back wages. Workman has deposed in his affidavit that he could not get any employment despite his best efforts. There is no reason to disbelieve this deposition of the workman. Under these circumstances I hold that award of 60% of the wages as ID No.78/07 7 back wages would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I award 60% of the last drawn wages to the workman as back wages. Management is directed to pay the back wages amount within three months of the award becoming enforceable failing which workman shall be entitled to recover the amount of the back wages with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award.
9. Award stands passed as per the foregoing findings and reference stands answered accordingly. A copy of the award be sent to Ld. Secretary (Labour) Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for necessary action. Award be also sent to server (www.delhicourts.nic.in). File be consigned to record room. Announced in Open Court on this 16th Day of July 2009 S.K. Kaushik Presiding Officer Labour Court No. XII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.