Delhi District Court
Through vs Represented By on 4 August, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MONIKA SAROHA
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No. 02,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR-DL-SW05 DLCT13-004226-2018
LID No. 4016/2018
Date of institution 06.10.2018
Date of Award 04.08.2023
Shri Subhash Chand,
S/o Shri Vasudev Prasad,
Mobile No. - 9313992079,
R/o H.No. D-193, Swami Shardhanand Park,
Delhi-42.
Represented by
AR Sh. Ajit Kumar Singh and Sh. S.K. Singh, Mobile No.
9811619336, Chamber No. B61 BGS Block, Tis Hazari Court
Through
General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union (regd.).
C-12, Ram Garh, G.T. Karnal Road,
Jhangirpuri Mor, Delhi-33. ..... Workman.
Versus
M/s Printman Associates Pvt. Ltd.
8, Printing Press Area, Near Wazirpur Depot.,
Ring Road, Delhi-35.
Represented by
AR Sh. Abhishek Shukla, Mobile No. 9910191309, 573, Western
Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-54.
.....Management.
LID No. 4016/18
2
AWARD
1.Vide this award, I shall dispose off the statement of claim filed by the claimant/workman namely Sh. Subhash Chand against the management namely M/s Printman Associates Pvt. Ltd.
CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
2. According to the claim of the workman, he was employed as a 'DTP Operator' with the management since June, 2013. He continuously worked at the same designation with the management till 20.08.2015 at his last drawn salary of Rs. 24,500/- per month but suddenly on 20.08.2015, the management illegally terminated his services.
2.1 It is averred in the claim that earlier also the workman had filed a claim before the Labour Court at Dwarka which claim was settled before the Lok Adalat at Dwarka Courts. Before the Lok Adalat the parties settled their disputes and management had reinstated the workman on the same post and also paid some compensation amount to him. In view of the said settlement, the workman joined his duty with the management on 11.12.2017. After joining duty, the workman had demanded appointment letter but the management did not issue the same and the management again illegally terminated LID No. 4016/18 3 the services of the workman on 09.01.2018 without any reason and without paying the earned wages for the month of December, 2017.
2.2 Aggrieved of this action of the management, on 10.01.2018 workman sent a demand notice to the management but the management neither gave any reply nor reinstated the workman on duty. Later, the workman filed his complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Despite direction of the Labour Inspector, the management did not reinstate the workman on his duty however, they paid his earned wages. The workman then approached the Conciliation Officer also with his written grievance. After the conciliation proceedings failed, the present claim was filed before this court.
2.3 On the basis of the above averments in the claim, notice was issued to the management. The AR of the management appeared and written statement was filed by the management.
REPLY OF THE MANAGEMENT
3. In its reply, the management admitted the employer-employee relationship with the workman but took the defence that it never terminated the services of the workman LID No. 4016/18 4 and the workman voluntarily stopped coming to his job from 09.01.2018 onwards and therefore he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the claim. The management also averred that the last drawn salary of the workman were only 16,500/- and not 24,500/- as alleged by the workman in the claim. The earlier proceedings before Lok Adalat were admitted by the management.
ISSUES FRAMED
4. On the basis of the pleadings and the reference the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor on 26.02.2019.
(i) Whether the claimant is covered within the definition of workman provided under Sec. 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPW
(ii) Whether the claimant himself resigned from the services of the management voluntarily?
OPM
(iii) Whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the Management? OPW
(iv) Relief.
After the issues were framed the matter was listed for workman's evidence.
LID No. 4016/18 5WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
5. The workman appeared in the witness box as the sole witness and filed his evidence by way of affidavit. In this affidavit, the averments of the claim, as mentioned above were reiterated. The workman relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Ex. WW1/1 - Demand notice dated 10.01.2018.
(ii) Ex. WW1/2 - Courier receipt regarding sending of demand notice.
(iii) Ex. WW1/3 - Statement of claim filed before Assistant Labour of Commissioner.
(iv) Ex. WW1/4 - Rejoinder filed before Assistant Labour of Commissioner.
(v) Ex. WW1/5 - Failure report given by the conciliation officer dated 23.08.2018.
5.1 The workman was cross-examined at length by the AR of the management. No other witness was examined and upon request, the evidence of the workman was closed. The matter was then listed for management evidence.
MANAGEMENT'S EVIDENCE
6. Management examined Ms. Babita Jain (Creative Head of Management) as MW1 in the witness box as the sole LID No. 4016/18 6 witness and filed her evidence by way of affidavit. In this affidavit, the averments of the written statement were reiterated. The MW1 relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Ex. MW1/1 - Copy of letter dated 24.01.2018 sent to General Secretary of the Union by the management.
(ii) Ex. MW1/2 - Copy of postal receipts regarding sending of the above said letter dt. 24.01.2018.
(iii) Ex. MW1/3 - Copy of unserved/returned postal envelops.
(iv) Ex. MW1/4 - Copy of written statement, filed by the management before the Conciliation Officer (running into five pages).
(v) Ex. MW1/5 - Copy of CV of workman.
(vi) Ex. MW1/6 - Copy of letter of appointment dated
26.08.2013 given by the management to workman (running into two pages).
(vii) Mark A - Copy of factory licence issued by Chief Inspector of Factories, Haryana.
(viii) Mark B - Copy of Govt. notification regarding minimum wages of NCT of Delhi (running into three pages).
(ix) Ex.MW1/7 -Copy of letter of authority issued by the management in favour of the witness.
6.1 This witness was cross-examined at length by the LID No. 4016/18 7 AR of the workman. No other witness was examined and upon request, the evidence of the management was closed. The matter was then listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
7. The ARs of the both the parties advanced detailed arguments on 01.04.2023 which were heard by this court. The AR for the management also filed written arguments alongwith the judgments relied upon by him. All the relevant documents on record were considered.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
8. The issue-wise findings on the basis of arguments advanced, written submissions filed, evidence led and all material on record are discussed in details in the sub-paragraphs that follows:-
Issue No.1 -: Whether the claimant is covered with the definition of workman provided under Sec. 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPW 8.1 The case of the workman as reflected in the claim itself since the beginning has been that he was employed as a 'DTP Operator' with the management. In the written statement, LID No. 4016/18 8 the management had no where denied that the claimant was not working with it or was not working as a workman but was working in some managerial capacity. Thus, in view of the implied admission in the written statement regarding the status of the claimant, this court is satisfied that the claimant is covered within the definition of workman provided under Sec. 2
(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even otherwise, nothing has come on record to show that the claimant was not a workman but instead a manager or supervisor. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.2 :- Whether the claimant himself resigned from the services of the management voluntarily? OPM 8.2 The onus to prove this issue was upon the management. The management was required to establish that while it never terminated the services of the workman, the workman willingly stopped reporting for his duties and abandoned his job. To establish the same the management has rightly relied upon the reply sent by it to the demand notice of the workman. This reply is dated 24.01.2018 and is available on record as Ex. MW1/1 (colly.) alongwith its postal receipts to LID No. 4016/18 9 show that it was duly posted to the union which had sent the demand notice. It is not the case of the workman that no such reply was received by his union. Thus considering the speed post receipt and the correct address of the worker's union mentioned in it, it can safely be presumed that the reply to the demand notice was duly received by the union. In this reply to the demand notice it is clearly mentioned that the workman may report for his duties with immediately and that the management was also ready and willing to pay the salary for the month of December, 2017 to the workman. This reply sent by the management to the union immediately after receiving the demand notice of the workman, shows that as early as within 15 days of the workman having lastly worked with the management, the management was ready and willing to let the workman join at the same post, same place and even pay the salary for the month of December 2017. This conduct of the management in responding to the demand notice in such a manner shows that it had no problem in the workman working for it, reporting for his duties and in paying his due salary for the month of December 2017. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the management had unlawfully terminated the services of the workman or it did not want the workman to work with it for any reason whatsoever. A management which does not want a workman on its rolls would not send such a reply to LID No. 4016/18 10 the demand notice received from the union. 8.3 Further, not only in the reply to the demand notice but even in its reply before the conciliation officer, the management wrote that it never terminated the services of the workman and that the workman may resume his duties. A vague rejoinder to this reply was filed by the workman before the conciliation officer where again it was nowhere mentioned that whether the workman had gone to the office of the management to rejoin his duties or not. It is only vaguely mentioned in the rejoinder on record as Ex. WW1/4, that the workman is going to the gate of the management regularly but the management is not giving him work. It is not explained anywhere in pleadings or in evidence even before this court as to when the workman approached the management for rejoining his duties, who did he meet in this regard, who refused to offer him work, etc. Thus, it cannot be said that does the workman had failed to establish that while he visiting the management, the management did not let him resume his duties.
8.4 Another aspect which needs to be discussed here is regarding the notices sent to the workman by the management through post even much before the present proceedings were initiated. The management has placed on record the envelops Ex. MW1/3 (alongwith the postal receipts) to show that it had LID No. 4016/18 11 repeatedly sent notices to the workman at his residential address asking him to rejoin but he never came for his duties. These notices have been sent at the address D-193, Swami Shradhanand Park, Bheleshwa Dairy, Delhi-42. These envelops were returned to the management with the report that the addressee does not reside at the said address. Ld. AR for the management rightly pointed out that this is the same address which is mentioned by the workman in his claim before this court, in the proceedings initiated by him before the Labour Commissioner, in the rejoinder filed before the Labour Commissioner and in the affidavit of evidence filed before this court also. In such circumstances, if the management sent notices to the workman at this address it cannot be said that the management made no efforts to contact the workman when he remained absent from his duties. What else could be management have done to encourage the workman to join his duties? For how long and in what other way was the management expected to chase the workman for joining his duties? The return of the notices sent by the management at the residential address of the workman with the report that 'no such person resides' at the address mentioned by the workman himself in all his communications with the the labour authorities and even this court, shows that the workman was evading receiving of the notices being repeatedly sent to him by LID No. 4016/18 12 the management.
8.5 In such a situation, this court is satisfied that the management has duly established that while it never terminated the services of the workman and rather tried to contact the workman repeatedly asking him to rejoin and also made an offer to him to rejoin before the conciliation officer and this court, it was the workman who was not ready and willing to report for duties and had willingly abandoned his job with the management. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
Issue No.3 : Whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the Management? OPW 8.6 In view of the discussion above and the findings given in Issue No. 2 above, it is clear that the workman failed to establish that the management unlawfully terminated his services and did not want him to work with it any longer. Rather it is established that the workman abandoned his duties, and did not report for work despite repeated written intimations addressed to his union and at his residential address asking him to report for work with the management. This issue is LID No. 4016/18 13 accordingly decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
Relief :-
9. Considering the findings given in issue No. 1 & 2 the claimant is not found entitled to any relief. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
10. Accordingly, the statement of claim as filed by Sh. Subhash Chand against M/s Printman Associates Pvt. Ltd., is hereby dismissed.
11. The attested copy of the award be sent to the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication, as per rules.
Judicial file be consigned to Record Room, as per rules, after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court today on 4th August 2023 MONIKA SAROHA Presiding Officer, Labour Court -2 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
LID No. 4016/18