Delhi District Court
Presiding Officer Labour CourtX vs Unknown on 30 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Ref. No. : F.24 (2317)/04/Lab./127882
Dated : 03.02.2005
I.D.No. : 221/05
Unique I.D.No. 02402C0235212005
(i) Sh. Murari Singh S/o Sh. Lal Dev Singh,
(ii) Ms. Tara Kumari D/o Late Sh. Bal Ram Patil,
(iii) Sh. Ramkesh S/o Sh. Fauddar,
(iv) Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh.Itwari Lal,
(v) Sh. Sriniwas (Raju) S/o Sh. Jaggoband
(vi) Sh. Dev Nandan S/o Sh. Bhagirath,
(vii) Sh. Ram Bahadur S/o Sh.Ram Chander,
(viii) Sh. Bal Kishan Pandey S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Pandey,
(ix) Sh. Jagdish Chand S/o Sh. Puranand,
(x) Ms. Manju W/o Sh. Lajras, and
(xi) Sh. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Vishwanath
C/o Kapda Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,
L603, Mangolpuri, Delhi110083. .................Workmen
Versus
(1) M/s Superior Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
D13, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi,
New Delhi110041.
I.D No. 221/05 Page 1 out of 18
(2) M/s Superior Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
C1, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi,
New Delhi110041. .............Managements
Date of Institution of the case : 07.03.2005
Date on which reserved for Award : 27.11.2012
Date on which Award is passed : 30.11.2012
A W A R D
The workmen, above named, raised an industrial dispute
regarding the termination of their services by the managements of
M/s Superior Craft Pvt. Ltd.. The appropriate Government on being
satisfied regarding the existence of Industrial Dispute between the
parties, made a reference for adjudication. The said reference is as
under:
"Whether the services of Sh. Murari Singh &
Others as per Annexure 'A' have been
terminated by the management illegally and/or
unjustifiably and if so to what sum of money as
monetary relief alongwith consequential benefits
in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and
to what other relief are they entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
Thereafter, notice was issued to the workmen. Statement of
claim was filed by the workmen S/Sh. Santosh Kumar , Ram Bahadur,
I.D No. 221/05 Page 2 out of 18
Raj Kumar, Ramkesh, Sriniwas Raju, Dev Nandan, Ms. Tara Kumari
and Ms. Manju. In the statement of claim it is stated that the
workman Sh. Murari Singh had been working with the management
as Helper w.e.f. 07.02.2003 on the last drawn salary of Rs. 2,785/ per
month; that the workman Ms. Tara Kumari had been working with the
management as Checker w.e.f. 30.01.2003 on the last drawn salary of
Rs. 2,951/ per month; that the workman Sh. Ramkesh had been
working with the management as Tailor w.e.f. 10.03.2003 on the last
drawn salary of Rs. 3,208/ per month; that the workman Sh. Raj
Kumar had been working with the management as Tailor w.e.f.
05.02.2003 on the last drawn salary of Rs. 3,208/ per month; that the
workman Sh. Sriniwas Raju had been working with the management
as Tailor w.e.f. 11.12.2002 on the last drawn salary of Rs. 3,208/ per
month; that the workman Sh. Devnandan had been working with the
management as Tailor w.e.f. 24.03.2003 on the last drawn salary of
Rs. 3,208/ per month; that the workman Sh. Ram Bahadur had been
working with the management as Tailor w.e.f. 24.03.2003 on the last
drawn salary of Rs. 3,208/ per month; that the workman Sh. Bal
Kishan Pandey had been working with the management as Helper
w.e.f. 13.02.2003 on the last drawn salary of Rs. 2,784/ per month;
I.D No. 221/05 Page 3 out of 18
that the workman Sh.Jagdish Chand had been working with the
management as Checker w.e.f. 08.03.2003 on the last drawn salary of
Rs. 2,951/ per month; that the workman Ms. Manju had been
working with the management as Checker w.e.f. 26.01.2002 on the
last drawn salary of Rs. 2,950/ per month; that the workman Sh.
Santosh Kumar had been working with the management as Tailor
w.e.f. 20.03.2003 on the last drawn salary of Rs. 3,208/ per month;
that they were having a clean service record and had given no chance
of complaint to the management regarding the performance of their
duties; that the management had obtained the signatures and thumb
impressions of the workmen on blank appointment letter at the time
of their appointment; that the management had neither given the copy
of the same to the workmen nor given them the opportunity to read it
and there is apprehension that management can use these documents
against the workmen; that the management had taken the signatures
and thumb impressions of the workmen on various blank papers and
blank vouchers at the time of their appointment as also during their
service period and there is apprehension that management can use
these documents against the workmen; that The Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable on the
I.D No. 221/05 Page 4 out of 18
management and the service condition of the workmen are regulated
vide Model Standing Orders; that the main work of the management
is manufacturing of readymade garments and for which the
management had opened various factories apart from management
nos. 1 and 2 where more than 1000 employees were working; that the
work performed in these factories is dependent on each other hence
all these factories are a single organization under I.D. Act; that the
management was not maintaining the service record of the workmen
from the date of appointment; that for this reason all the workmen of
the management became the members of the union; that the union had
raised a dispute regarding date of appointment before the conciliation
officer, upon failure which was referred for adjudication in a court of
law; that the management was pressurizing the workmen to withdraw
their case of date of appointment; that upon refusal for the same, the
management had terminated the services of the workmen on
05.07.2004 without any notice, reason, displaying any seniority list
and prior permission of the Government despite the workmen having
worked for more than 240 days in each calender year with the
management, which action of the management is illegal and
unjustified; that the management had violated the provisions of
I.D No. 221/05 Page 5 out of 18
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto
date) as it terminated the services of the workmen during conciliation
proceedings; that if the termination of the services of the workmen
does not come under the definition of retrenchment, then the
termination of the services of the workman without any notice,
reason and without any opportunity of being heard and to put his
defence is illegal and unjustified and which is not the part and parcel
of the service condition between the workmen and the management;
that the termination of the services of the workmen without any
notice, reason, opportunity of being heard, change in service
condition is illegal; that the workmen had approached the labour
department for their reinstatement in service but the management did
not cooperate with the labour department and despite the asking of
the officers of the labour department did not take back the workmen
on duty; that upon this the workmen raised a dispute before the
conciliation officer; that despite asking/direction of the conciliation
officer, the management did not take back the workmen on duty,
hence the present reference is before this Hon'ble Court; that the
management was not maintaining any seniority list of the workmen
working with it; that the employees junior to the workmen were
I.D No. 221/05 Page 6 out of 18
working with the management at the time of termination of the
services of the workmen by the management; that the work performed
by the workmen is still existing with the management and the same is
being done by the juniors to the workmen as also with new hands;
that the workmen are unemployed since the date of their illegal
termination. Hence, the workmen have claimed reinstatement with
full back wages, continuity of their services and all consequential
benefits.
Notice of filing of the statement of claim was sent to the
management who had appeared and contested the claim by filing its
written statement, which was later on amended vide the relevant order
passed in this regard, on record, on moving of an appropriate
application by the management in this regard, on record. In the
amended written statement filed by the management it has taken the
preliminary objections that the workmen had worked in M/s Superior
Crafts, C1, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, New Delhi110041 and not in
M/s Superior Crafts Pvt. Ltd., which was not even in existence during
the period in question; that M/s Superior Crafts Pvt. Ltd. impleaded as
Superior Crafts is the necessary and proper party; that the statement
of claim is suffering from misjoinder and non joinder of the parties
I.D No. 221/05 Page 7 out of 18
thereby rendering this frivolous statement of claim liable for out right
rejection; that the petitioners were probationers who had not even
completed 240 days and their services had been dispensed with in
accordance with law of land qua probation; that the respondent
establishment has been closed w.e.f. 17.12.2008 and all the employees who were affected by the said closure have been paid their full and final dues. On merits, it is stated that the establishment C1 had come in operation on 14.07.2003; that the establishment was not even existing during the period which allegedly have been maliciously claimed by the workmen as their date of joining; that the establishment is not operating from C1 as the unit had been shifted to D12 w.e.f. 16.08.2004; that the dates of appointment and dispense due to unsatisfactory performance, of the petitioners is Appendix C; that it is denied that the management had taken the signatures and thumb impressions of the workmen on blank appointment letter/blank papers/blank vouchers/any other documents; that the petitioners were duly issued the appointment letter, which they willfully accepted after reading the contents of the same; that the management is duly compliant with the Industrial Employment Standing Order, 1946; that neither the answering management nor any sister concern is I.D No. 221/05 Page 8 out of 18 employing 1000 workmen; that each one of them is separate legal entity; that it is denied that the workmen of the establishment are the members of the union; that the management is duly contesting the said case in regard to the date of appointment and has a good case on merit since it has the requisite sanction of the legal and valid documentary evidence; that it is denied that the management had pressurized the workmen to withdraw the said dispute; that the petitioners have not worked for 240 days; that the petitioners were probationers and their service had been judiciously dispensed with on account of their unsatisfactory performance; that the action of the respondent is absolutely legal and no other exercise i.e. seeking permission as alleged or offering notice pay was required before dispensing with the services of the petitioners/probationers who had not even completed 240 days; that it is denied that the management had terminated the services of the workmen illegally; that the action of the management in regard to the petitioners is fully at tandem with the terms and conditions of their appointment letter; that the petitioners were probationers and to dispense with service on account of unsatisfactory performance was a judicious decision taken by the management and as such the action is absolutely legal, justified and I.D No. 221/05 Page 9 out of 18 duly at tandem with the provisions of the appointment letter; that the workman had not completed 240 days with the management; that the management had duly vindicated its stand in the labour department despite highly militant and hostile behaviour of the petitioners; that the claimants are gainfully employed; that the claimants are not entitled to be reinstated as the management has already been closed down w.e..f 17.12.2008 and all the employees affected by the said closure have already been paid their full and final dues. All other allegations are denied. Hence it is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
In rejoinder to the amended written statement, all the averments of statement of claim are reaffirmed and of the amended written statement are denied by the workman.
On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 20.04.2006, the following issues had been framed:
(i) As per the terms of reference i.e. whether the services of the workmen have been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/ Govt. Notifications and to what I.D No. 221/05 Page 10 out of 18 other relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
(ii) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for and the case was adjourned for workmen evidence.
In support of her case the workman Ms. Manju appeared as WW1 in workman evidence, tendered her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW1/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW1/1 to WW1/5, on record.
In support of his case the workman Sh. Raj Kumar appeared as WW2 in workman evidence, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW2/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW2/1 to WW2/13, on record.
In support of his case the workman Ms. Tara Kumari appeared as WW3 in workman evidence, tendered her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW3/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW3/1 to WW3/11, on record.
In support of his case the workman Sh. Santosh Kumar appeared as WW4 in workman evidence, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW4/A as also relied upon the documents I.D No. 221/05 Page 11 out of 18 Exts.WW4/1 to WW4/11, on record.
In support of his case the workman Sh. Dev Nandan appeared as WW5 in workman evidence, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW5/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW5/1 to WW5/4, on record.
In support of his case the workman Sh. Ramkesh appeared as WW6 in workman evidence, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW6/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW6/1 to WW6/3, on record.
In support of his case the workman Sh. Sriniwas (Raju) appeared as WW7 in workman evidence, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW7/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW7/1 to WW7/9, on record.
The workmen have also led the evidence of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Clerk, ESIC Department, Regional Office, Rajinder Place, Delhi in their workmen evidence as WW8 who has stated that he had brought the summoned record. The photostat copy of the same is placed on record and same is contained in pages 1 to 153 and is Ex. WW8/1(Collectively).
After examining WW8, evidence on behalf of the I.D No. 221/05 Page 12 out of 18 workmen has been closed, on record.
In support of its defence, management has examined Sh.Y.K. Sharma, Manager of the management as MW1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.MW1/1 to MW1/46 and Ex. MW1/25A.
After examining MW1, the evidence on behalf of the management has been closed and the case fixed for hearing of final arguments.
That thereafter, an application has been moved on behalf of the management under section 11 I.D. Act r/w order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the plea of the alleged closure of the factory/establishment of the management on the date alleged viz 17.12.2008 alognwith amended written statement which has been allowed vide order dated 03.12.2011 passed in this regard, on record, and the amended written statement, as above said, taken on record and the following additional issue viz. (i) Whether the factory/establishment of the management is closed w.e.f. 17.12.2008 as alleged? OPM, framed vide order dated 25.05.2012, on record, and the case fixed for management evidence on the additional issue, on record.
I.D No. 221/05 Page 13 out of 18 In support of its case, the management has filed the affidavit of Sh. Shashi Bhushan, General Manager (HR & IR) of the management in the management evidence on the additional issue, on record.
However, during the pendency of the case for management evidence on additional issue, the workmen viz. S/Sh. Raj Kumar and Santosh Kumar have settled all their disputes with the management in respect of their reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service, consequential benefits, if any, etc. vide settlement dated 28.09.2012 (in respect of workmen S/Sh. Raj Kumar and Santosh Kumar) arrived at between the said workmen and the management in this regard before the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, Ex. C1, bearing the signatures of the said workmen at Points A1 and A thereon, in payment of an amount of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each on the part of the management to the said workmen in this regard which amount has been received by the said workmen from the management i.e. an amount of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each by way of account payee cheques bearing nos. 839835 and 839839 both dated 06.10.2012 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Rajendra Place, Rachna I.D No. 221/05 Page 14 out of 18 Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi110008 respectively and an amount of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each in cash in the court on 06.10.2012, thereby totaling an amount of Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each as agreed between the parties vide the above mentioned settlement agreement, Ex. C1, receipt of which amount each the workmen have acknowledged as also the workman Sh. Sriniwas Raju has settled all his disputes with the management in respect of his reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service, consequential benefits, if any, etc. vide settlement dated 24.08.2012 arrived at between the workman and the management in this regard Ex. C1 (Colly) bearing the signatures of the workman at Points A thereon, in payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the part of the management to the workman in this regard which amount has been received by the workman from the management in cash in the court on 24.08.2012 as agreed between the parties vide the above mentioned settlement agreement, Ex. C1 (Colly), receipt of which amount the workman has acknowledged as also the workmen Ms. Tara Kumari and Ms. Manju have settled all their disputes with the management in respect of their reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service, consequential benefits, if any, etc., I.D No. 221/05 Page 15 out of 18 in payment of an amount of Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) each on the part of the management to the said workmen in this regard which amount has been received by the said workmen each from the management i.e. an amount of Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each by way of account payee cheques bearing nos. 839844 and 838845 both dated 27.11.2012 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Rajendra Place, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi110008 respectively and an amount of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each in cash in the court on 27.11.2012 thereby totaling an amount of Rs. 35,000/ (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) each, receipt of which amount each the workmen have acknowledged. Now, the abovenamed workmen are left with no claim whatsoever against the management. Statements of the parties to the said effect have been recorded separately, on record, as also it is seen from the record that statement has been given by the AR for the workmen, on record, to the effect that the workmen S/Sh. Dev Nandan Pandit and Ramkesh Kumar, who had appeared in workman evidence are not in contact with him since long and accordingly, he is unable to present the said workmen in the instant proceedings at this stage as also it is seen from the record that the said I.D No. 221/05 Page 16 out of 18 workmen have not been appearing on the last several dates of hearing fixed in the instant proceedings, on record.
It is further seen from the record that the workman namely Sh. Ram Bahadur has settled all his disputes with the management in respect of his reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service, consequential benefits, if any, etc. vide compromise deed Ex. C2 duly signed by him at mark A thereon, receipt of settlement Ex. C3, copy of cheque Ex. C4 between the parties in this regard, on record, in payment of an amount of Rs.7,000/(Rupees Seven Thousand only) on the part of the management to the workman in this regard which amount has been received by the workman from the management by way of a cheque bearing no. 741289 dated 17.02.2009, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Rajendra Place, 2 Pusa Road, Patel Nagar, New Delhi110008 in the court on 19.02.2009, receipt of which amount the workman has acknowledged. Now, the workman has been left with no claim whatsoever against the management.
Statement of the said workman to the said effect has been recorded separately, on record.
As discussed above, as the matter has been settled between the workmen S/Sh. Raj Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Sriniwas Raju, Ms. I.D No. 221/05 Page 17 out of 18 Tara Kumari, Ms. Manju and Sh. Ram Bahadur and the management , the said workmen are not entitled to any other claim.
In view of the statement of the AR for the workmen in respect of the workmen S/Sh. Dev Nandan Pandit and Ramkesh Kumar, as above said, on record, and in view of the said workmen having not been appearing on the last several dates of hearing fixed in the instant proceedings, on record, it is apparent that the said workmen are not entitled to any relief in the same.
It is further seen from the record that the workmen viz. S/Sh. Murari Singh, Bal Kishan Pandey and Jagdish Chand also named in the instant reference have not even filed their statement of claim in the same despite service and thus, it is apparent that they are not interested in pursuing their case and that there is no dispute between the said workmen and the management.
Reference is answered accordingly and the Award is passed. The Ahlmad is directed to send six copies of this award to the appropriate Government. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court on (CHANDRA GUPTA)
30.11.2012 Presiding Officer Labour CourtX
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D No. 221/05 Page 18 out of 18