Delhi District Court
Sh.Vidyadharan Nair vs M/S Tech Books Electronic Services Pvt. ... on 18 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Ref. No. : F. 24 (4746)/2001/Lab./608892
Dated : 05.04.2002
I.D.No. : 205/09
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0004312002
Sh.Vidyadharan Nair, S/o Sh. T.P. Shridharan,
FI/203, Madangir, New Delhi110062. .................Workman
Versus
M/s Tech Books Electronic Services Pvt. Ltd.,
A193, Okhla Indl. Area, PhaseI,
New Delhi110020. ...............Management
Date of Institution of the case : 29.04.2002
Date on which reserved for Award : 30.09.2014
Date on which Award is passed : 18.10.2014
A W A R D
The workman Sh. Vidyadharan Nair, raised an industrial
dispute regarding the termination of his services by the management
of M/s Tech Books Electronic Services 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. Vidyadharan Nair
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.1 of 66
S/o Sh. T.P. Shridharan have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management,
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
other relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
Thereafter, statement of claim was filed by the workman.
It is stated by the workman in his statement of claim that he joined the
services of the management on 21.05.1996 as a Computer Operator;
that his last drawn wages was Rs. 7,150/ per month; that the
management had no complaints against the performance and conduct
of the workman; that the management company was engaged in data
entry operations, coding, typesetting, etc.; that the company was
employing around 1,500 workmen; that the production activities in the
company were being carried on with the aid of power; that the
management company was an industrial establishment as defined in
Section 25 L of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto
date); that in the month of October, 2000, one Sh. Debasis Chaudhary
took over as Controlling Officer of the workman and started harassing
him to force him to resign from the services of the company; that the
workman was repeatedly asked to submit his resignation, which he
refused; that thereafter, the workman was transferred to another
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.2 of 66
department, the work of which he had very little experience, with the
sole intention to harass him; that the workman was once again
pressurized to submit his resignation, which he refused; that no annual
increment was given to the workman for the year 2001; that the
workman was also not paid his annual bonus for the year 2000; that
the company used to make payment of productivity bonus to the
workman every three months which was also not paid to the workman
for three consecutive months; that the workman was issued a frivolous
warning letter by the management on 07.05.2001 to which the
workman replied vide his order dated 08.05.2001; that the workman
was thereafter, issued a charge sheetcumsuspension letter on
15.05.2001; that the workman submitted a further letter on 18.06.2001
in reply to the charge sheetcumsuspension letter asking for some
documents; that the management did not supply copy of the
documents asked for by the workman vide his above letter dated
18.06.2001; that the management made payment of subsistence
allowance to the workman in May, 2001 and June, 2001 after the
workman approached the Labour Department and the Labour
Department intervened on behalf of the workman; that thereafter, the
management stopped making payment of subsistence allowance to the
workman; that the management appointed one Sh. Manoj Batra,
Personnel Officer of the company as the enquiry officer, who held
only one sitting of the enquiry on 14.08.2001; that during the course of
the enquiry the workman submitted a letter dated 14.08.2001 to the
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.3 of 66
management raising various issues connected with the enquiry; that
the workman submitted in the said letter that the enquiry officer was a
junior to Sh. D.P. Sahoo, DGM, HR & Administration who directed
the enquiry officer in the presence of the workman to hold an exparte
enquiry against the workman; that the workman also pointed out that
the enquiry officer's behaviour before Sh.D.P. Sahoo was submissive
and the workman demanded that the enquiry officer should be
changed; that the workman also demanded that he should be allowed
to be represented in the enquiry through an Office bearer of the
National Computers & Electronics Mazdoor Sabha, in which he was a
member; that the workman also demanded that he should be paid his
subsistence allowance without which he was unable to maintain
himself and to attend the enquiry; that the enquiry officer refused to
mention the receipt of the letter in the enquiry proceedings; that
however, he agreed to mention the main issues raised by the workman
in the said letter; that one Sh. Vinay Kumar participated in the enquiry
as the representative of the management; that the enquiry officer
refused to give a copy of enquiry proceedings to the workman; that the
enquiry officer also refused to fix the next date of enquiry; that
thereafter, the management sent a letter dated 21.08.2001 to the
workman fixing the date of enquiry on 24.08.2001 at 10:30 A.M; that
the said letter was received by the workman on 27.08.2001 only; that
immediately thereafter, the workman sent a registered AD letter dated
01.09.2001 bringing the above facts to the notice of the management
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.4 of 66
and also enquiring about the next date of enquiry; that however, the
management did not respond; that the workman also went to the
factory on 03.09.2001 to report for duty but was informed that his
services stands terminated; that however, no termination letter was
issued to the workman; that the domestic enquiry was not completed
by the management; that at the time of the termination of the services
of the workman, many workman junior to him were still in the
employment of the company; that no notice or notice pay in lieu
thereof the same was paid to him before terminating him from his
permanent services; that the domestic enquiry initiated by the
management was never completed; that the workman was never called
for the enquiry after 21.08.2001; that the workman was neither
allowed to be represented through a defence representative as
requested by him nor he was paid any subsistence allowance; that no
report of the enquiry was made out and supplied to the workman; that
the workman was also not given any opportunity to show cause before
his services were terminated; that in view of the above facts no proper
and valid domestic enquiry could be held to have been conducted in
the case; that the workman sent a Registered AD demand notice to the
management on 25.09.2001; that however, the management did not
respond to the same; that the workman, thereafter, raised an Industrial
Dispute before the conciliation officer; that however, the management
did not attend the conciliation proceedings despite repeated notices
sent by the Labour Department; that the dispute had, therefore, been
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.5 of 66
referred to this Hon'ble Court for adjudication; that the workman was
unemployed after the termination of his services by the management;
that he could not get any alternative employment despite his best
efforts; that the management company was an industrial establishment
for the purposes of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
that the workman's services, therefore, could not have been
terminated/retrenched without seeking permission from the
appropriate Government; that however, no such permission/approval
was sought or obtained from the appropriate Government; that the
action of the management in terminating the services of the workman
was arbitrary, unjustified, illegal, malafide, a colourable exercise of
the employer's rights and an unfair labour practice as defined in the
Vth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that the workman
was therefore, entitled to be reinstated in service with the management
with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential
benefits.
Notice of the filing of statement of claim was sent to the
management, which had appeared and contested the statement of
claim filed by the workman by filing its written statement. In the
written statement filed by the management, it has taken the
preliminary objections that the claimant was not a workman as defined
under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947; that the
claimant was performing work of supervisory and administrative
nature; that he was working on crucial time bound projects and was
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.6 of 66
performing work of expertise; that the claim filed by the claimant was
not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court and was liable to be
rejected; that the reference made by the appropriate Government
before this Hon'ble Court was legally incorrect, invalid and was liable
to be rejected; that it was settled law that it is the Labour Court who
has the discretion in respect of the relief to be granted in favour of the
claimant, if any; that by referring the said dispute, the Government had
prejudged the relief and had in fact called upon this Hon'ble Court to
compulsorily grant monetary relief in case it was held that the
claimant had been illegally terminated; that even in that situation also
it was this Hon'ble Court who had the discretion of granting a
particular relief monetary or otherwise; that in view of the same, the
present reference made by the Government to this Hon'ble Court was
liable to be returned and rejected; that the reference therefore, was bad
in law and liable to be returned and rejected. On merits, it was denied
that the conduct and performance of the claimant had been
satisfactory; that it was denied that the management company was an
industrial establishment as stated; that it was denied that the claimant
was ever pressurized by any official of the management to submit
resignation; that it was denied that the management issued frivolous
warning letter to the claimant; that in fact the claimant committed
certain acts of gross misconduct for which he was issued a charge
sheet dated 10.05.2001; that in view of the seriousness of misconduct
committed by him he was also suspended from his services pending
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.7 of 66
disciplinary action; that accordingly, an enquiry was constituted,
where he was given opportunities to defend himself in the same; that it
was denied that he was not paid subsistence allowance or he ever
suffered any kind of prejudice in defending the enquiry; that Mr.
Manoj Batra, Personnel Officer was appointed as enquiry officer; that
the claimant raised false and frivolous objections in the enquiry; that
the allegations raised by the claimant were frivolous and he raised
objections only for the sake of objections which were legally
untenable; that it was denied that the enquiry officer did not record the
proceedings properly; that it was denied that the proceedings of the
enquiry were not supplied to the claimant by the Enquiry Officer ; that
it was denied that the enquiry officer refused to fix the next date as
alleged; that the claimant was duly intimated by the enquiry officer
about the dates of enquiry and the claimant in fact deliberately did not
participate in the enquiry; that under the circumstances the enquiry
officer was constrained to conduct the enquiry in his absence; that the
claimant had been writing letters to the management only to create
false evidence; that on the basis of the findings submitted by the
enquiry officer which were found by the management to be proper, the
claimant was terminated vide its letter dated 03.09.2001 which was
duly sent by the management to the claimant; that the enquiry was
conducted by the enquiry officer as per the principles of natural
justice, equity and fairplay; that no notice or notice pay was required
under law to be paid to the claimant by the management; that it was
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.8 of 66
denied that the enquiry was not completed; that the claimant was
aware about all the dates of proceedings held in the enquiry, however,
he chose to stay away from the enquiry; that in any case, no prejudice
was ever caused to the claimant; that it was denied that the claimant
sent any demand notice to the respondent; that the reference made by
the Government was legally invalid and incorrect and was liable to be rejected; that the claimant was gainfully employed elsewhere; that it was denied that the claimant was entitled to any relief whatsoever from this Hon'ble Court; that in case this Hon'ble Court set aside and vitiate the enquiry conducted by the respondent against the claimant for any reason whatsoever, the respondent craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to prove the misconduct committed by the claimant before this Hon'ble Court. All other allegations were denied. Hence, it was prayed that the statement of claim be dismissed.
In rejoinder to the written statement of the management, all the averments of the written statement of the management were denied and that of the statement of claim were reaffirmed by the workman.
It is seen from the record that an application for interim relief had also been filed on behalf of the workman along with the statement of claim, reply in opposition to which has been filed on behalf of the management, on record. However, it is further seen from the record that the same has not been pressed and the case fixed for arguments on the point of issues.
On the pleadings of the parties vide order dated I.D No. 205/09 Page No.9 of 66 14.10.2003, the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether in this case, the workman was performing supervisory or administrative nature of duties? OPM
(ii) Whether the enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper? OPM
(iii) As per terms of reference.
No other issue arose or pressed for. Issue no. 1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issues and the case was adjourned for management evidence on the preliminary issues. However, subsequently on the representation of the management in this regard that the onus had been wrongly placed upon it to lead evidence on the preliminary issues first and on the AR for the workman agreeing to lead the workman evidence on the preliminary issues first, on record, case had been fixed for workman evidence on the preliminary issues vide the relevant order passed in this regard, on record.
In support of his case, workman himself appeared as WW1, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW1/A as also relied upon documents Exts. WW1/1 to WW1/32 in the same, on record.
After examining WW1, workman evidence on the preliminary issues have been closed, on record.
In support of its defence, the management has led the evidence of Sh. Mukesh Garg, Enquiry Officer as MW1, who has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW1/A as also relied I.D No. 205/09 Page No.10 of 66 upon documents Exts. MW1/1 and MW1/2 in the same, on record.
After examining MW1, management evidence on the preliminary issues has been closed, on record.
Arguments on the preliminary issues have been heard. Vide order dated 06.01.2009, preliminary issue nos. 1 and 2, as above said, were decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
In view of the management having pleaded in its written statement that in the event of the enquiry been conducted by it having been held to be vitiated, on record, it be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the workman in the instant proceeding, on record, the case was adjourned for management evidence on the point of misconduct.
The management has led the evidence of Sh. Dharamveer Yadav, Assistant Manager, Digital Solution of the management as MW3, who has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW3/A as also relied upon documents Exts. MW3/1 to MW3/3.
The management has further led the evidence of Sh. Vinod Badola, Manager (Human Resources) of the management as MW4, who has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW4/A as also relied upon documents already Exts. MW3/2, MW3/3 and Exts. MW4/1 and MW4/2, on record.
Thereafter, an application has been moved on behalf of the management for summoning of witnesses in management evidence, I.D No. 205/09 Page No.11 of 66 which was allowed vide the relevant order passed in this regard, on record.
Summoned witness Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC, office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi appeared as MW5, who has deposed that he had brought on that day the attested copies of Form 9, Form 6A, Form No. 24 submitted by the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of its employees for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 as also Form No. 3A for the period 01.04.2008 to March, 2009, which were Ex. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9); that he had also brought on that day attested copy of subscriber ledger card as on 01.04.2013 in respect of member Sh. S.Vidhyadharan Nair, which was Ex. MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3); that Form No. 9 showing the employment of the workman with the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. since the year 2007; that he had filed attested copies of Form No. 9 (page no.1), Form 6A for the years 20062007 to 20102011 (page nos. 2 to 11), Member Ledger (page no. 12), Form 2 (page nos. 1314), Form 5 and 10 (page nos. 1516), Ex. MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16).
Summoned witness Sh. Devender Singh Negi, Senior Executive (HR) of M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D 103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 appeared as MW6 and deposed that he tendered on that day attested copy of letter of appointment of M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., in I.D No. 205/09 Page No.12 of 66 respect of workman Sh. S. Vidhyadharan Nair dated 01.02.2007 (page nos. 13) Ex. MW6/1 Colly as also attested copy of warning letter dated 24.06.2009 of the management M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the workman Ex. MW6/2.
Thereafter, management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman has been closed on the part of the management, on record.
It is seen from the record that consequent to the closure of the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, as above said, on record, the workman has chosen not to lead any rebuttal workman evidence to the same, on record, by not making any representation to the said effect, on record and instead has got recorded a statement, on record, to the effect that consequent to the closure of the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, he did not wish to lead any rebuttal workman evidence, on record.
Final arguments have been heard. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the parties, on record.
My findings on the remaining issue no. 3 are as under: ISSUE No. 3 It is seen from the record that consequent to order on the preliminary issues dated 06.01.2009 deciding the issue no. 1 viz.
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.13 of 66whether the workman was performing supervisory or administrative nature of duties as also the issue no. 2 whether the enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper in favour of the workman and against the management, the management has led the evidence of MW3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav, Assistant Manager, Digital Solution with the management and MW4 Sh. Vinod Badola, Manager (Human Resources) of the management on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman along with MW5 Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC, Office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi and MW6 Sh. Devender Singh Negi, Senior Executive (HR) of M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseI, New Delhi110020 on the point of alleged gainful employment of the workman pursuant to the date of termination of his services on the part of the management vide letter dated 03.09.2001 Ex. MW4/2, on record.
In his deposition by way of affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW3/A, MW3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav, Assistant Manager, Digital Solution of the management has deposed that Sh. S.V. Nair had been working in his workgroup since 2000; that the workman had the tendency of sleeping during working hours which effected on his quality of the output; that despite the issuance of several warnings to Sh. S.V. Nair pertaining to his performance and not to sleep on the duty, he used to repeat the same mistake; that he had written a letter dated 25.04.2001 to D.G.M. Data Conversion reporting him about the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.14 of 66 misconduct committed by Sh. S.V. Nair; that Sh. S.V. Nair was issued a warning letter dated 26.04.2001 by Sh. Debashish Chaudhari to the effect that he was found sleeping in the work floor on 25.04.2001; that Sh. S.V. Nair was in the habit of leaving the office before the completion of office hours; that he advised him several times to leave office after the completion of office hours, however, he always failed to complied to the instructions issued to him from time to time; that in addition to above, the quantity of the output of Mr. Nair was much below the standard set for similar categories of employees.
This witness has also relied upon documents Exts. MW3/1 to MW3/3, on record. Ex. MW3/1 being letter dated 25.04.2001 of the MW3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav of the management to D.G.M. Data Conversion of the management in respect of alleged sleeping on duty of the workman Sh. S.V. Nair, working as Operator with the management on 25.04.2001 at about 11:45 A.M and upon he being allegedly questioned by the MW3 in this regard, he did not care to give any reply with the further complaint that it had been observed earlier also that the workman had the tendency of sleeping on duty; that despite advices he was continuing with his such habit which was detrimental to his performance and there was also a possibility that the whole project being processed by the workgroup might have a disastrous effect; that this was for information and necessary action at the end of the addressee, Ex. MW3/2 being warning letter dated 26.04.2001 of the management to the workman pursuant to I.D No. 205/09 Page No.15 of 66 complaint/letter dated 25.04.2001 of the MW3 to the management (Ex. MW3/1) to the effect that it had been brought to the notice of the management that the workman had been found sleeping in the work floor on 25th April during the duty hours at 11:45 A.M, which act of the workman was highly objectionable and was not permissible as per the company rules; that it had also been reported by his supervisors that he left his duty place without permission and left office before time very frequently; that the above said deliberate acts of the workman was misconduct on his part, repetition of which behaviour would call for strict disciplinary action against him; that the above said acts of the workman amounted to gross indiscipline and he management had not condoned his misconduct of sleeping during duty hours and Ex. MW3/3 being the attendance record of the workman with the management w.e.f. 01.02.2001 to 30.09.2001.
This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf of the workman in management evidence, in which he has deposed that he had brought on that day his employment identity card of the management, where he was still working; that he was working with the management since the year 1996; that the workman had joined the services of the company prior to his joining the management; that he had joined as an Operator with the management; that the workman was also working as Operator in the management when he had joined; that in the initial period, he was junior to the workman as Operator; that he had become supervisor with the management in the year 1997;
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.16 of 66that warnings had been issued to the workman during the period 2000 2001, which were verbal; that no written warning had been given by him to the workman prior to the date of letter Ex. MW3/1; that he could not say whether any warning letter was issued to the workman on 26.04.2001; that the DGM Sh. Debashish Chaudhary had issued warning letter to the workman; that the fact of issuance of warning letter to the workman by the management had been informed to him by the management as also by the workman; that he had not seen the warning letter; that he had not informed the management by way of written letter/communication in respect of the workman coming late to work and leaving early. Vol. He had informed verbally; that it was wrong to suggest that he had not informed orally; that he had worked with the workman prior to the year 2000 as Operator in the same team, again said he had worked as Operator with the workman prior to becoming supervisor in the year 1997; that he had remained in the data conversion group of the management; that during the period 2000 2001 the workman was working directly under his supervision; that Mr. N. Gogoi was senior to him; that it was correct that a warning letter dated 07.05.2001 Ex.WW1/9 had been issued to the workman; that it was wrong to suggest that the letters Ex. MW3/1 and Ex. MW3/2 had been written/issued subsequent to 07.05.2001; that it was wrong to suggest that he was not working with the management as on that date; that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely on behalf of the management.
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.17 of 66Sh. Vinod Badola, Manager (Human Resources) of the management has appeared as MW4 in management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW4/A as also relied upon documents already Exts. MW3/2 and MW3/3 along with Exts. MW4/1 and MW4/2, in the same, on record. In his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW4/A he has deposed to the effect that he knew the workman who was employed with the management of Techbooks Electronics Services Ltd. since the year 1996; that during the employment of the claimant, he was warned several times verbally pertaining to quality of his services; that since he did not improve upon his services, he was issued warning letters dated 26.04.2001, 02nd May, 2001 and 03rd September, 2001; that the claimant despite various advises and warning letters was in a habit of sleeping during his duty hours and absenting from his duty place and even leaving before completion of his duty hours without any intimation and permission from his superiors; that since the claimant failed to improve upon his conduct and performance despite the advises and warning letters, the management was constrained to dismiss the services of the claimant vide letter dated 03rd September, 2001.
Exts. MW3/2 and MW3/3 being, as above said; Ex.
MW4/1 being warning letter dated 02.05.2001 of the management to the workman in respect of complaint regarding his performance being not satisfactory even though a number of opportunities had been given I.D No. 205/09 Page No.18 of 66 to him in this regard with the further assertion that the same was affecting the quality production of the management/company as also it was adversely affecting the normal working of the management/company which was also creating bad precedent in the working of the management/company in maintaining the standard that was required for any management/company working for international agencies; that this also reflected his negligence and indifference to the working standard of the management/company, Ex. MW4/2 being letter dated 03.09.2001 of the management to the workman terminating the services of the workman with the management pursuant to charge sheet dated 10.05.2001 (Ex. WW1/10 as also Ex. WW1/M1,on record) issued by the management to the workman containing the allegations/charges of the management against the workman to the effect (1) Sleeping on duty during working hours, (2) Poor quality of out put and (3) Leaving the duty place without permission on the ground that an enquiry was held into the charges by the enquiry officer, who held the workman guilty of the same; that the management had gone through the eqnuiry report including record of the enquiry and they agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer; that in view of the seriousness of the charges of misconducts proved to have been committed by the workman, the management had lost confidence in him and thereby terminates him from his services with the management with immediate effect.
This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf I.D No. 205/09 Page No.19 of 66 of the workman in management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, in which he has deposed that he was not a summoned witness; that he had joined the management on 01.01.1999 as Assistant, HR; that he could not tell when the workman had joined the management; that the workman had been in the employment of the management prior to his joining the management; that it was correct that the workman had never served under him or in his department; that he was having the knowledge regarding the facts of the case and had accordingly deposed in this regard vide his affidavit by way of evidence; that he had personal knowledge of the case; that the letter dated 26.04.2001 had been issued to the workman in respect of his absenteeism from his duty and then another letter in the month of May, 2001 had also been sent to him in this regard; that the letters had been issued by the HR Department; that he could not tell the name of the person who had issued the letters; that he had brought his identity card in respect of his employment with the management, however it was correct that it was not mentioning the name of the management or his designation on the same. Vol. APTARA, the brand name of the company had been given on the same; that it was correct that the workman was working in the same building as himself in the year 2001; that it was wrong to suggest that as Assistant HR, he had never worked in the same building with the workman; that it was correct that he had not issued any letter to the workman; that it was wrong to suggest that he was having no personal I.D No. 205/09 Page No.20 of 66 knowledge of the facts of the instant matter; that it was wrong to suggest that his affidavit by way of evidence was a false affidavit or that he was deposing falsely on behalf of the management being its Manager (HR).
Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC from the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi has appeared as MW5 in management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman and has deposed that he had brought on that day attested copies of Form 9, Form 6A, Form No. 24 submitted by the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of its employees for the period 01st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2011 as also Form 3A for the period 01st April, 2008 to March, 2009, which were Ex. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9); that he had also brought on that day attested copy of subscriber ledger card as on 01.04.2013 in respect of member Sh. S.Vidhyadharan Nair, which was Ex. MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3); that Form No. 9 showing the employment of the workman with the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. since the year 2007; that he had filed attested copies of Form 9 (page no.1), Form 6A for the years 20062007 to 20102011 (page nos. 2 to 11), Member Ledger (page no. 12), Form 2 (page nos. 1314), Form 5 and 10 (page nos. 1516) Ex. MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16).
In his cross examination on behalf of the workman, he has deposed that on that day he had not brought the originals of the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.21 of 66 attested copies of documents filed by him in his examination in chief on that day; that from the records, he could state that the workman Sh. S.Vidhyadharan Nair was employed with M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi 110020 since 26.02.2007; that they were having record only upto the financial year 20102011 in respect of the deposit of PF contribution in respect of the workman by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.; that he could state that the EPF return filed by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of its employees for the financial year 20112012 was not having the name of the workman as its employee in the same; that he could not say as to till which month the EPF deposit has been made in respect of the workman by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the financial year 2010 2011; that it was wrong to suggest that the attested copies of documents filed by him in his examination in chief were not true to their originals or were false and forged documents; that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely.
Sh. Devender Singh Negi, Senior Executive (HR) of M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 has appeared as MW6 in management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman and has deposed to the effect that he tender on that day attested copy of letter of appointment of M/s I.D No. 205/09 Page No.22 of 66 Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of workman Sh. S. Vidhyadharan Nair dated 01.02.2007 (page nos. 13) Ex. MW6/1 Colly as also attested copy of warning letter dated 24.06.2009 of the management M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the workman Ex. MW6/2.
In his cross examination on behalf of the workman in the same he has deposed that on that day he had brought his identity card of the company, copy of which was Ex. MW6/W1; that it was correct that the name of the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. was not mentioned on the same and the name M/s Contentra Technologies (India ) Pvt. Ltd. was mentioned on the same. Vol. The name of the company had been changed from M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Contentra Technologies (India ) Pvt. Ltd. since 01.04.2013; that he was a summoned witness and had received summons from this court to appear as a witness in the instant case on that day; that the summon had been received in the name of the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. for that day; that he had not brought any authorization letter of the company to appear on its behalf on that day; that it was wrong to suggest that he was not authorized to appear and depose on behalf of the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the instant proceedings on that day; that he was employed with the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. since September, 2004; that he had joined the company as Assistant (HR); that Exts. MW6/1 Colly and I.D No. 205/09 Page No.23 of 66 MW6/2 were not bearing his signatures on the same; that he had filed attested copies of the said documents under his own signatures; that he was not having any authorization to attest documents on behalf of the management company; that pursuant to Ex. MW6/2, the workman had accepted his fault verbally and had undertaken not to repeat the same in future; that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely in this regard; that it was wrong to suggest that he had filed forged and fabricated documents; that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely at the behest of the management M/s Techbook Electronics Services Pvt. Ltd..
Thereafter, management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman has been closed, on record.
It is seen from the record that consequent to closure of the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, the workman has not made any representation to the effect that he wishes to lead any workman evidence in rebuttal to the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman brought on record by the management, as above said, and in fact has given a statement, on record, that consequent to the closure of the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, on record, the workman did not wish to lead any rebuttal workman evidence, on record, which has been I.D No. 205/09 Page No.24 of 66 recorded separately, on record.
It is seen from the record that the management has led the testimonies of MW3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav and MW4 Sh. Vinod Badola its officials/employees, as above said, in the management evidence on the point of the misconduct of the workman as alleged by it against him vide its charge sheet dated 10.05.2001, Ex. WW1/10 as also Ex. WW1/M1, on record, viz. "(1) Sleeping on duty during working hours, (2) Poor quality of out put and (3) Leaving the duty place without permission", in which regard the said management witnesses have deposed interalia to the effect that they were working as Assistant Manager, Digital Solution and Manager (Human Resources) respectively with the management and were well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such were competent to depose on behalf of the management in the same. MW3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav, Assistant Manager, Digital Solution of the management has deposed that the workman had been working in his workgroup since 2000 and that the workman had the tendency of sleeping during working hours which affected on his quality of the output; that despite the issuance of several warnings to the workman pertaining to his performance and not to sleep on the duty, he continued to repeat the same mistake; that he had written a letter dated 25.04.2001 to D.G.M. Data Conversion reporting him the misconduct committed by the workman in this respect which was Ex. MW3/1, on which the workman had been issued a warning letter dated 26.04.2001 I.D No. 205/09 Page No.25 of 66 by the management to the effect that he was found sleeping in the work floor on 25.04.2001, which letter was Ex. MW3/2, on record; that the workman was in the habit of leaving the office before the completion of office hours; that he had advised him several times to leave office after the completion of office hours, however, he always failed to comply to the instructions issued to him from time to time; that in addition to the above, the quantity of the output of the workman was much below the standard set for similar categories of employees. Attendance record of the workman in respect of the allegation of the management against him of leaving the office before the completion of the office hours was Ex. MW3/3 Colly, on record.
MW4 Sh. Vinod Badola, Manager (Human Resources) of the management has deposed that the workman was employed with the management since the year 1996; that during the employment of the claimant/workman, he was warned several times verbally pertaining to quality of his services; that since he did not improve upon his services, he was issued warning letters dated 26.04.2001, 02.05.2001 and 03.09.2001 Exts. MW3/2, MW4/1 and MW4/2 respectively, on record; that the claimant/workman despite various advises and warning letters was in a habit of sleeping during his duty hours and absenting from his duty place and even leaving before completion of his duty hours without any intimation and permission from his superiors; that the attendance record of the claimant/workman for the relevant period was Ex. MW3/3 Colly, on record; that since the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.26 of 66 claimant/workman failed to improve upon his conduct and performance despite the advises and warning letters, the management was constrained to dismiss the services of the claimant/workman vide its letter dated 03rd September, 2001 to the workman, which was Ex. MW4/2, on record.
It is further seen from the record that vide letter dated 25.04.2001 Ex. MW3/1, MW3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav, Assistant Manager, Digital Solution of the management has complained against the workman to the management in respect of the sleeping of the workman on duty and despite advise to him on his part to desist from such habit/practice, which was detrimental to his performance with the possibility of having a disastrous effect on the whole project being processed by the workgroup, the workman has continued with his said habit, on which vide its letter dated 26.04.2001, Ex. MW3/2, the management has warned/issued a warning to the workman that his act of sleeping in the work floor during duty hours as reported against him was highly objectionable and was not permissible as per the company rule with the further assertion that it had further been reported by the supervisors of the workman that he left his duty place without permission and left office before time very frequently, which was deliberate acts of misconduct on his part, repetition of which would entail strict disciplinary action against him with the further assertion that the said act of the workman amounted to gross indiscipline and the management had not condoned his misconduct of sleeping during I.D No. 205/09 Page No.27 of 66 duty hours.
It is further seen from the record that vide attendance record of the workman for the period w.e.f. 01.02.2001 to 30.09.2001 Ex. MW3/3 Colly, the management has relied upon its allegations of the workman leaving the place of his work/duty place early without permission as leveled by it against the workman vide its charge sheet dated 10.05.2001 to the workman, Ex. WW1/10 as also Ex. WW1/M 1, on record, along with the other allegations against the workman of his sleeping on duty during working hours and poor quality of output as mentioned against the workman in the same.
It is further seen from the record Ex. MW4/1 is again a warning letter dated 02.05.2001 of the management to the workman in respect of his performance having never been satisfactory despite a number of opportunities having been given to him in this regard, which was affecting the quality production of the company as also adversely affecting the normal working of the company along with creating bad precedent in the working of the company in maintaining the standard that was required for any company working for international agencies which also reflected his negligent view and indifference to the working standard of the company.
It is further seen from the record that vide Ex. MW4/2 the management has proved the termination letter dated 03.09.2001 issued on its part to the workman in respect of termination of the services of the workman with the management pursuant to the charge sheet dated I.D No. 205/09 Page No.28 of 66 10.05.2001 issued by the management to the workman, Ex. WW1/10 as also Ex. WW1/M1, on record, and consequent to enquiry held into the charges by the enquiry officer against the workman in respect of the same on the ground that in view of the seriousness of the charges of misconduct proved to have been committed by the workman, the management had lost confidence in him and thereby terminates him from his services with it with immediate effect.
It is further seen from the record that the workman himself has proved a warning letter dated 07.05.2001 issued by the management to the workman Ex. WW1/9, on record, with the contents that his controlling officer had reported that his performance in delivering the jobs was not up to the expected standards in terms of both quality and schedule; that the low delivery of job quality from his side had also been reflected in the QC report of his job files; that this act of low quality performance on his job had also become a serious concern for the management and it was expected that he should address this issue more seriously; that the management expected that he should improve his working standards and in the event of repetition of similar offences in future, there would be no other alternative for the management but to terminate the contract of his employment.
It is further seen from the record that the management has led the evidence of Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC, office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi as MW5 in its management evidence on the point of misconduct I.D No. 205/09 Page No.29 of 66 and alleged gainful employment of the workman, who has deposed that he had brought on that day the attested copies of Form 9, Form 6A, Form No. 24 submitted by the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of its employees for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 as also Form No. 3A for the period 01.05.2008 to March, 2009, which were Ex. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9); that he had also brought on that day attested copy of subscriber ledger card as on 01.04.2013 in respect of member Sh. S.Vidhyadharan Nair, which was Ex. MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3); that Form No. 9 showing the employment of the workman with the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. since the year 2007; that he had filed attested copies of Form No. 9 (page no.1), Form 6A for the years 20062007 to 20102011 (page nos. 2 to 11), Member Ledger (page no. 12), Form 2 (page nos. 1314), Form 5 and 10 (page nos. 1516), Ex. MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16).
In his cross examination on behalf of the workman, he has deposed that he had not brought the originals of the attested copies of documents filed by him in his examination in chief on that day; that from the records, he could state that the workman Sh. S.Vidhyadharan Nair was employed with M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 since 26.02.2007; that they were having record only upto the financial year 20102011 in respect of the deposit of PF contribution in respect of the workman by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.; that he I.D No. 205/09 Page No.30 of 66 could state that the EPF return filed by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of its employees for the financial year 20112012 was not having the name of the workman as its employee in the same; that he could not say as to till which month the EPF deposit had been made in respect of the workman by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the financial year 20102011; that it was wrong to suggest that the attested copies of documents filed by him in his examination in chief were not true to their originals or were false and forged documents; that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely.
The management has further led the evidence of Sh. Devender Singh Negi, Senior Executive (HR) of M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 as MW6 in its management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, who has deposed in the same to the effect that he tender on that day attested copy of letter of appointment of M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of workman Sh. S. Vidhyadharan Nair dated 01.02.2007 (page nos. 13) Ex. MW6/1 Colly as also attested copy of warning letter dated 24.06.2009 of the management M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the workman Ex. MW6/2.
In his cross examination on behalf of the workman in the same he has deposed that on that day he had brought his identity card of the company, copy of which was Ex. MW6/W1; that it was correct I.D No. 205/09 Page No.31 of 66 that the name of the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. was not mentioned on the same and the name M/s Contentra Technologies (India ) Pvt. Ltd. was mentioned on the same. Vol. The name of the company had been changed from M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Contentra Technologies (India ) Pvt. Ltd. since 01.04.2013; that he was a summoned witness and had received summons from this court to appear as a witness in the instant case on that day; that the summon had been received in the name of the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. for that day; that he had not brought any authorization letter of the company to appear on its behalf on that day; that it was wrong to suggest that he was not authorized to appear and depose on behalf of the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the instant proceedings on that day; that he was employed with the company M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. since September, 2004; that he had joined the company as Assistant (HR); that Exts. MW6/1 Colly and MW6/2 were not bearing his signatures on the same; that he had filed attested copies of the said documents under his own signatures; that he was not having any authorization to attest documents on behalf of the management company; that pursuant to Ex. MW6/2, the workman had accepted his fault verbally and had undertaken not to repeat the same in future; that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely in this regard; that it was wrong to suggest that he had filed forged and fabricated documents; that it was wrong to suggest that he was I.D No. 205/09 Page No.32 of 66 deposing falsely at the behest of the management M/s Techbook Electronics Services Pvt. Ltd..
Exts. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9), MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3), MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16), MW6/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to
3), MW6/2, and Ex. MW6/W1 being as above said.
It is, thus, seen from the record that the management vide the depositions of its MW3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav and MW4 Sh. Vinod Badola, as above said, and Exts. MW3/1, MW3/2, Ex.MW3/3 Colly, MW4/1 and MW4/2, as above said, has led its evidence on the point of misconduct as alleged by it against the workman vide its charge sheet dated 10.05.2001 issued to the workman in this regard (Ex. WW1/10 as also Ex. WW1/M1, on record), to the effect "(1) Sleeping on duty during working hours, (2) Poor quality of out put and (3) Leaving the duty place without permission" in justification of its letter/order dated 03.09.2001 to the workman terminating the services of the workman with it on the said account, as also led the evidence of MW5 Sh. Mahesh Kharwar and MW6 Sh. Devender Singh Negi, as above said, along with Exts. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9), MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3), MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16), MW6/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 3) and MW6/2, as above said, on the point of alleged gainful employment of the workman, in rebuttal whereof the workman has chosen not to lead any rebuttal workman evidence to the same vide his statement to the said effect recorded separately, on record, having chosen merely to rely upon his cross examination of the said I.D No. 205/09 Page No.33 of 66 MWs in management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, as above said, on record.
It is further seen from the record that though the said MWs 3 Sh. Dharamvir Yadav and 4 Sh. Vinod Badola of the management in management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman have been cross examined on behalf of the workman in the same, however, it is further seen from the record that it is not the case of the workman that the allegations of the management vide its charge sheet dated 10.05.2001 Exts. WW1/10 as also WW1/M1, on record, in respect of the alleged misconduct of the workman, as above said, resulting in termination of the services of the workman vide letter dated 03.09.2001 of the management to the workman in this regard, Ex. MW4/2, on record, do not constitute misconduct justifying the same or that he had not committed the alleged misconduct and/or even that the punishment imposed by way of termination of service was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
It is further seen from the record that all that the workman alleges vide his cross examination of the relevant MWs 3 and 4, as above said, in management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman is that the letters Exts. MW3/1 and MW3/2 had been written/issued subsequent to 07.05.2001 which is the date of a warning letter dated 07.05.2001 issued by the management to the workman, proved by the workman as Ex. WW1/9 I.D No. 205/09 Page No.34 of 66 in workman evidence on the enquiry issue, on record, in respect of the low delivery of the job quality from the side of the workman/low quality performance of his job on his part thereby not repudiating the said management exhibits directly as being forged or fabricated and/ or not denying the receipt of the same viz. warning letter dated 26.04.2001, Ex. MW3/2, as above said, on his part.
It is further seen from the record that it is not the case of the workman in his cross examination of the MWs 3,4,5 and 6, as above said, in the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman that he is unemployed from the date of termination of his service on the part of the management in the instant proceeding viz. w.e.f. 03.09.2001 as alleged in the same.
It is further seen from the record that even in his cross examination of the MW5 Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC, office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi in respect of his testimony along with Exts. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9), MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3) and MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16) proved in the same, of the subscription deposition towards EPF of the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 in respect of its employees including the workman with the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi, for the period w.e.f.
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.35 of 6620062007 to 20102011, Form 6A, Ex. MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 2 to
11) as also Ex. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 2 to 9) including the subscriber ledger card as on 01.04.2013 with Employees Provident Fund Organization, EPFO Complex, Plot No. 23, Behind ACP Office, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi110075 in respect of the workman Ex. MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3) as also Ex. MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 12) along with the Form no. 9 page no. 1 of Ex. MW5/1 Colly and page no. 1 of Ex. MW5/3 Colly, submitted by the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 in respect of its employees including the workman to the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi along with form 2 (page nos. 1314) and form 5 and 10 (page nos. 1516) of the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 to the said authority in respect of its employees including the workman, Ex. MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 116) and of the MW6 Sh. Devender Singh Negi, Senior Executive (HR) of M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 in respect of alleged gainful employment of the workman with the management M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 w.e.f. 01.02.2007 vide appointment letter dated 01.02.2007 of the workman with the said management on the terms and conditions of service as mentioned therein along with the salary I.D No. 205/09 Page No.36 of 66 structure of the said management in his respect appended as annexure A to the same, Ex. MW6/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 3) with subsequent warning letter dated 24.06.2009 of the said management to him Ex. MW6/2, on record, it is not the case of the workman that the workman had not been employed with M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi 110020 w.e.f. 01.02.2007/26.02.2007 as alleged by the said MWs vide their depositions, as above said, on record along with management exhibits MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9), MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3), MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16), MW6/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 3), MW6/2, proved in the same, as above said, on record, or that he is not the person Sh. S.Vidhyadharan Nair S/o Sh. T.P.S. Pillai as named in the subject exhibits viz. Exts. MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 9), MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3), MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16), MW6/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 3) and MW6/2 proved in the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, as above said, on record, as no suggestion(s) to the said effect have been put to the said MWs on his part in the same, on record.
It is further seen from the record that in the cross examination of the MW5 Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC, office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi, it has specifically come on record that from records he could state that the workman Sh. S.Vidhyadharan Nair was I.D No. 205/09 Page No.37 of 66 employed with M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 since 26.02.2007; that they were having record only upto the financial year 20102011 in respect of the deposit of PF contribution in respect of the workman by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.; that he could state that the EPF return filed by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of its employees for the financial year 20112012 was not having the name of the workman as its employee in the same; that he could not say as to till which month the EPF deposit has been made in respect of the workman by M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the financial year 20102011.
It is further seen from the record that it is not the case of the workman in his cross examination of the MWs 3 and 4 in the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman that the actions of the management as deposed vide their testimonies as MW3 and MW4 in the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, as above said, and the management exhibits viz. Exts. MW3/1 to MW3/3, Ex. MW4/1 and Ex. MW4/2 proved in the same, as above said, smack of/are motivated by vindictiveness on the part of the management against him, as alleged by him in his statement of claim in the instant proceeding, the workman having admittedly not led any rebuttal workman evidence to the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.38 of 66 workman, on record, as above said.
I further find that the cross examination of the MWs 3 Sh. Dharamveer Yadav, Assistant Manager, Digital Solution of the management, 4 Sh. Vinod Badola, Manager (Human Resources) of the management, 5 Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC, office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi and 6 Sh. Devender Singh Negi, Senior Executive (HR) of M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 in the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman on the part of the workman is inconsequential.
It is further seen from the record that the workman has deliberately chosen not to enter the witness box and depose on oath in rebuttal of the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, as above said, or to lead any evidence in this regard in the same, on record, right from the date of closure of management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman on the part of the management in the instant proceeding, on record, till the date of hearing in the instant proceeding, on record, when, in fact, the workman has categorically stated that he does not wish to lead any rebuttal workman evidence consequent to closure of the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, on record, vide his statement to the said effect I.D No. 205/09 Page No.39 of 66 recorded separately, on record and accordingly, I find that the management has been able to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman as alleged by it by way of testimonies of MW3 Sh. Dharamveer Yadav, Assistant Manager, Digital Solution of the management and MW4 Sh. Vinod Badola, Manager (Human Resources) of the management along with management exhibits MW3/1 to MW3/3, MW4/1 and MW4/2 proved in the same, as above said, on record, along with the factum of the gainful employment of the workman with M/s Planman Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D 103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020 w.e.f. 01.02.2007/26.02.2007 by way of testimonies of MW5 Sh. Mahesh Kharwar, LDC, office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 23, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi and MW6 Sh. Devender Singh Negi, Senior Executive (HR) of M/s Plan Man Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., D103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi 110020 along with management exhibits MW5/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to
9), MW5/2 (page nos. 1 to 3), MW5/3 Colly (page nos. 1 to 16), MW6/1 Colly (page nos. 1 to 3) and MW6/2 proved in the same, as above said, on record.
I, further find from the record that in view of the workman having not stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath in support of his allegation of his being unemployed from the date of termination of his services by the management and having not been able to get any alternative employment despite his best efforts as I.D No. 205/09 Page No.40 of 66 alleged by him in the instant statement of claim and in controvertion/rebuttal of the allegation of the management of his being gainfully employed elsewhere during the period with effect from the same as alleged by it in its written statement filed in opposition to the statement of claim of the workman in the instant proceeding, even consequent to leading of management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman on the part of the management in the instant proceeding, as above said, on record, along with it being not the case of the workman in his cross examination of the MWs 3 to 6 in the management evidence on the point of misconduct and alleged gainful employment of the workman, as above said, on record, that the workman has been/is unemployed from the date of termination of his services on the part of the management in the instant proceeding viz. with effect from 03.09.2001 as alleged, specifically vide termination letter dated 03.09.2001 of the management in respect of the workman Ex. MW4/2 in the same, on record, as already observed hereinabove, the workman has not been able to discharge the primary onus which was upon him in this regard and a presumption is liable to be drawn against the workman of his being gainfully employed in the instant proceeding subsequent to the date of termination of his services on the part of the management as alleged, specifically vide letter dated 03.09.2001 of the management to the workman in this regard, Ex. MW4/2, in the same, on record, which is drawn accordingly.
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.41 of 66Vide citation L & T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N Udayakumar MANU/ SC/8161/2007, it has been held: "8. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. R. Dhandapani MANU/SC/2167/2005: (2006) I LLJ 329 SC, it was held as follows:
It is not necessary to go into in detail regarding the power exercisable under Section 11A of the Act. The power under said Section 11A has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, is expected to interfere with the decision of a management under Section 11A of the Act only when it is satisfied that punishment imposed by the management is wholly and shockingly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. To support its conclusion the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, has to give reasons in support of its decision. The power has to be exercised judiciously and mere use of the words 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportionate' by itself will not be sufficient.I.D No. 205/09 Page No.42 of 66
9. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps wellmeant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process.
The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. [See: Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan I.D No. 205/09 Page No.43 of 66 and Anr. MANU/SC/0885/1993: (1994) II LLJ 888 SC].
Though under Section 11A, the Tribunal has the power to reduce the quantum of punishment it has to be done within the parameters of law.
Possession of power is itself not sufficient; it has to be exercised in accordance with law.
The High Court found that the Industrial Tribunal had not indicated any reason to justify variations of the penalty imposed. Though learned Counsel for the respondent tried to justify the Award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have considered the case in its proper perspective, we do not find any substance in the plea.
Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are not forums whose task is to dole out private benevolence to workmen found by Labour Court/Tribunal to be guilty of misconduct. The Tribunal and the High Court, in this case, have found a pattern of defiance and proved misconduct on not one but on several occasions.
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.44 of 66The compassion which was shown by the Tribunal and unfortunately endorsed by learned single Judge was fully misplaced.
9. In Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B.Narawarde MANU/SC/0138/2005: (2005) I LLJ 1129 SC it was noted as follows:
It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.45 of 66 Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A of the Act and reduce the punishment. As noticed hereinabove at least in two of the cases cited before us i.e. Orissa Cement Ltd. and New Shorrock Mills this Court held:
"Punishment of dismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate."
In this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy.
We too are of the opinion that the language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.46 of 66 absence of any extenuating factor referred to hereinabove.
10. Again in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma MANU/SC/0181/2005: (2005) II LLJ 156 SC, this Court dealt with the matter as follows:
The question then is, whether the interference with the punishment by the Labour Court was justified? In other words, the question is whether the punishment imposed was so harsh or so disproportionate to the charge proved, that it warranted or justified interference by the Labour Court? Here, it had been clearly found that the employee during work, had hit his superior officer with a tension screw on his back and on his nose leaving him with a bleeding and broken nose. It has also been found that his incident was followed by the unauthorised absence of the employee. It is in the context of these charges found established that the punishment of termination was imposed on the employee. The jurisdiction under Section 107A of the Act to I.D No. 205/09 Page No.47 of 66 interfere with punishment when it is a discharge or dismissal can be exercised by the Labour Court only when it is satisfied that the discharge or dismissal is not justified. Similarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. These aspects are well settled. In U.P. SRTC Vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma MANU/SC/0188/2000: (2000) I LLJ 1117 SC this Court, after referring to the scope of interference with punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal from service when the charge against the employee stood proved. It was also held that the jurisdiction vested with the Labour Court to interfere with punishment was not to be exercised capriciously and arbitrarily. It was necessary, in a case where the Labour Court I.D No. 205/09 Page No.48 of 66 finds the charge proved, for a conclusion to be arrived at that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge found proved, before it could interfere to reduce the punishment. In Krishnakali Tea Estate Vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh, MANU/SC/0743/2004: (2004) III LLJ 772 SC this Court after referring to the decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena MANU/SC/0008/1997: (1997) I LLJ 746 SC also pointed out the difference between the approaches to be made in a criminal proceeding and a disciplinary proceeding. This Court also pointed out that when charges proved were grave, visavis the establishment, interference with punishment of dismissal could not be justified. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate (2005) 2 SCC 489: (2005) 1 LLJ 738 this Court again reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and that each case I.D No. 205/09 Page No.49 of 66 had to be decided on its facts. This Court also indicated that the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, had to act within the four corners thereof. It could not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there existed a statutory provision in that behalf. The Tribunal or the Labour Court could not interfere with the quantum of punishment based on irrational or extraneous factors and certainly not on what it considers a compassionate ground. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this question, since the matter has been dealt with in detail in a recent decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Narawade (supra). This Court summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 141, para 20).
20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.50 of 66 management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment."
Vide citation Davalsab Husainsab MullaAppellant Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport CorporationRespondent MANU/SC/0997/2013: (2013)10 SCC 185, it has been held: "8. As far as the discretionary power of the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Act is concerned, the exercise of such power will always I.D No. 205/09 Page No.51 of 66 have to be made judicially and judiciously.
Under the said provision, wide powers have been vested with the Labour Court to set aside the punishment of discharge or dismissal and in its place award any lesser punishment. Therefore, high amount of care and caution should be exercised by the Labour Court while invoking the said discretionary jurisdiction for replacing the punishment of discharge or dismissal. Such exercise of discretion will have to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Before exercising the said discretion, the Labour Court has to necessarily reach a finding that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. A reading of Section 11A of the Act makes it clear that before reaching the said conclusion, the Labour Court should express its satisfaction for holding so. It has to be remembered that the question of exercise of the said discretion will depend upon the conclusion as regards the proof of misconduct as held proved by the management and only if it finds that the discharge or dismissal I.D No. 205/09 Page No.52 of 66 was not justified. Therefore, the satisfaction to be arrived at by the Labour Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act must be based on sound reasoning and cannot be arrived at in a casual fashion, inasmuch as, on the one hand the interference with the capital punishment imposed on the workman would deprive him and his family members of the source of livelihood, while on the other hand the employer having provided the opportunity of employment to the concerned workman would be equally entitled to be ensured that the employee concerned maintains utmost discipline in the establishment and duly complies with the rules and Regulations applicable to the establishment. In that sense, since the relationship as between both is reciprocal in equal proportion, when the employer had chosen to exercise its power of discharge and dismissal for stated reasons and proven misconduct, the interference with such order of punishment cannot be made in a casual manner or for any I.D No. 205/09 Page No.53 of 66 flimsy reasons.
9. In this context, it will be appropriate for the Labour Court to assess the gravity and magnitude of the misconduct found proved against the employee concerned, the past conduct of the employee, the repercussion it will have in the event of interference with the order of discharge or dismissal in the day to day functioning of the establishment which will have far reaching effects on the other workmen and so on and so forth. It should always be remembered that any misplaced sympathy would cause more harm to the establishment which provides source of livelihood for many number of employees than any good for the employee concerned. It will be worthwhile to refer to the repercussions that would result in the event of any misplaced sympathy shown to an employee who indulges in certain acts of misconduct which has been lucidly explained in a decision of the Madras High Court reported as Royal Printing Works Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Anr. MANU/TN/0311/1959: 1959 I.D No. 205/09 Page No.54 of 66 (II) LLJ 619 wherein Hon. Balakrishna Ayyar, J. (as he then was) stated the position as under: There are certain passages in the order of the tribunal which as I understand them suggest that carelessness on the part of an employee in relation to his work would not justify serious punishment. With this view I definitely disagree. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. I shall now refer to the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through. There are more familiar instances. A compositor who carelessly places a plus sign instead of a minus sign in a question paper may cause numerous examinees to fail. A compounder in a Hospital or chemists' shop who makes up the mixtures or other medicines carelessly may cause quite a few deaths. The man at an airport who does not carefully filter the petrol poured into a plane may cause it to crash. The railway employee who does not set the point carefully may cause a headon collision.
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.55 of 66Misplaced sympathy can be of great evil.
Carelessness and indifference to duty are not the high roads to individual or national prosperity. (Emphasis supplied)"
In Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Appellant Vs. Management of M/s Usha Breco Limited and AnrRespondents MANU/SC/7537/2008: (2008) 5 SCC 554, it has been held: " 34. The upshot of our discussion is that the decision of the Labour Court should not be based on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn a decision of the management on ipse dixit. Its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act although is a wide one, must be judiciously exercised. Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize and analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so."
Vide citation North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashappa and Anr. MANU/SC/8174/2006: (2006) 5 SCC 137 it has been held : "9. Yet recently in State of U.P. Vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Ors. MANU/SC/8066/2006:
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.56 of 66(2006) II LLJ 219 SC, it was opined that the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon by the respondent stating:
It is now wellsettled that principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now wellsettled that the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment, unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience.
10. The said principle of law has been reiterated in A. Sudharkar Vs. Post Master General, Hyderabad and Anr. MANU/SC/1628/2006 stating:
Contention of Dr. Pillai relating to quantum of punishment cannot be accepted, having regard to the fact that temporary defalcation of any amount I.D No. 205/09 Page No.57 of 66 itself was sufficient for the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the Appellant and in that view of the matter, the question that the third charge had been partially proved takes a back seat. In Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
MANU/SC/2522/2005: (2006) I LLJ 1004 SC, this Bench opined:
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is akin to one under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. While exercising such discretionary jurisdiction, no doubt it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one punishment by another; but it is also trite that the Tribunal exercises a limited jurisdiction in this behalf. The jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment could be exercised only when, inter alia, it is found to be grossly disproportionate.
This Court repeatedly has laid down the law that such interference at the hands of the Tribunal should be inter alia on arriving at a finding that I.D No. 205/09 Page No.58 of 66 no reasonable person could inflict such punishment. The Tribunal may furthermore exercise its jurisdiction when relevant facts are not taken into consideration by the management which would have direct bearing on the question of quantum of punishment."
Vide citation J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Appellant Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Anr Respondent MANU/SC/0741/2007: (2007) 2 SCC 433, it has been held: "26. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate MANU/SC/0043/2005: (2005) I LLJ 738 SC, M.P. Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma MANU/SC/0181/2005: (2005) II LLJ 156 SC, and Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Corporation vs. Ghanshyam Sharma 2002 (1) LLJ 234, this Court held that power under Section 11A of ID Act (or under similar provisions) cannot be used to interfere with the quantum of punishment, on irrational or extraneous factors, or on compassionate grounds. This Court also observed that though Section 11A gives the jurisdiction I.D No. 205/09 Page No.59 of 66 and power to the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, the discretion has to be used judiciously and not capriciously. This Court observed that harsh punishment wholly disproportionate the charge should be the criterion for interference."
Vide citation Mahinder Pal Verma Appellant Vs. The Taj Mahal Hotel Respondent, MANU/DE/0107/2013: 2013 IV AD (Delhi) 207, it has been held: "7. We are of the opinion that once the inquiry is found to have been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles of natural justice, in any case it is not open to the Industrial Adjudicator to revisit the factual findings arrived at therein. As far as the refusal of the Industrial Adjudicator to exercise powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act to vary the punishment is concerned, though Industrial Adjudicator has in that regard given cogent reasons, we may add the following case law in support thereof:
(a) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nanhe Lal Kushwaha I.D No. 205/09 Page No.60 of 66 MANU/SC/1457/2009: (2009) 8 SCC 772 reiterating that if the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently and misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands;
(b) Employers, Management, Colliery, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union 2005 Lab.I.C. 1341 (SC) where the order of the Tribunal substituting the punishment of dismissal with that of reinstatement without back wages and stoppage of one increment for the misconduct of assault was held to be unjustified;
(c) Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma MANU/SC/0181/2005:
AIR 2005 SC 1924, where also interference with the punishment for misconduct of hitting superior officer and subsequent unauthorized absence was held to be not justified;
(d) South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. V.G. I.D No. 205/09 Page No.61 of 66 Krishnakumar MANU/KE/0613/2005: 2006 LLR 415 (Ker.), where interference with the punishment of dismissal for misconduct of abusing Branch Manager and customers was held to be not justified;
(e) Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Krishna Vithal Bendre 2006 LLR 1226 (Bom.), where punishment of dismissal for the misconduct of assault was held to be not disproportionate;
(f) G. Vijayan Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem (Madras), MANU/TN/8845/2007:
2008 LLR 48 (Mad.), where interference with the punishment of dismissal for the misconduct of habitual absence was held to be a case of misplaced sympathy;
(g) The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Amreli Vs. Hasanbhai Nazbuddin Vankar MANU/GJ/0568/2005: 2006 LLR 425 (Guj.), holding that merely characterizing the misconduct as minor lapse of negligence not warranting dismissal is not permissible.
8. We may further note:
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.62 of 66i. the Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy MANU/SC/0061/2005: AIR 2005 SC 2769 held that when an employer loses confidence in his employee particularly in respect of a person who is discharging a function of trust/confidence, there cannot be any justification for directing his reinstatement;
ii. the Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra MANU/SC/0014/1999: (1999) 1 SCC 759 reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary matters of punishment cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction and that it is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the Competent Authority and if there has been an inquiry consistent with the Rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority and it is only when the I.D No. 205/09 Page No.63 of 66 punishment imposed shocks the conscience, should the power to mould the punishment be exercised;
iii. the same principles were reiterated recently in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya MANU/SC/0411/2011: (2011) 4 SCC 584:
iv. reference in this regard may also be made to State of Meghalaya Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak MANU/SC/7663/2008 : (2008) 7 SCC 580 laying down that it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently where the charged employee holds the position of trust and misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. v. the Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade MANU/SC/0138/2005:
AIR 2005 SC 1993 held that the discretion vested in the Industrial Adjudicator under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management is to be exercised only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being I.D No. 205/09 Page No.64 of 66 disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman and in the absence of any such factor, the Industrial Adjudicator cannot, by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A and reduce the punishment.
9. XXXXXXXXX
10. XXXXXXXXX
11. We may further add that once an employer loses confidence in his employee, there cannot be any justification for directing his reinstatement. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy MANU/SC/0061/2005: AIR 2005 SC 2769.
We thus do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. No costs."
In view of my findings and the case law on the subject, as above said, I find from the record that the workman has not been able to discharge the onus which was upon him in respect of the instant I.D No. 205/09 Page No.65 of 66 issue viz. the alleged illegal and/or unjustified termination of his services on the part of the management. The same is hereby, accordingly, decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
In view of my findings on the issue no. 3, as hereinabove, the workman is held to be not entitled to any relief.
Reference is answered accordingly and the Award is passed. The Ahlmad is directed to send the Six copies of this Award to the appropriate Government. The file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 18.10.2014 (CHANDRA GUPTA)
Presiding Officer Labour CourtX
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D No. 205/09 Page No.66 of 66