Delhi District Court
Vide Order No. F.24(1131)/05/Lab. ... vs S.T. Hadimani on 27 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT
XVII:KKD:DELHI
ID No.1108/06/05
Unique ID No.02402C0090622005.
(i) M/s. Shyam Electricals,
B286, Mahak Vihar, Tihar Gaon,
New Delhi.
(ii) M/s. Shyam Electricals,
48/6, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi18.
..............Managements
Versus
Its Workmen
Sh. Shakal Deep S/o Sh. Arjun Prasad
and 9 others as per AnnexureA, as represented
by Delhi Pradesh Kamgar Ekta Sangh, RZF53, Sita Puri,
PartII, New Delhi45.
.............Workmen
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.12.2005.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 21.03.2015.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 27.03.2015.
A W A R D :
ID No.1108/06/05. 1/27
1. Vide Order No. F.24(1131)/05/Lab. 1124549 dated
11.11.2005, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi, a reference
was sent to this Court with the following terms:
"Whether the services of Sh. Shakal Deep
S/o Sh. Arjun Prasad & 9 others as per
Annexure A have been terminated illegally
and, or unjustifiably by the management,
and if so, to what sum of money as monetary
relief along with consequential benefit in
terms of existing laws / Government
notifications and what other relief are they
entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?"
Annexure 'A'
S. No. Name of workman Father's Name
1 Sh. Shakal Deep Sh. Arjun Prasad
2 Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Sh. Puna Shah
3 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sh. Raja Ram
4 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sh. Ram Shree
5 Sh. Rajesh Sh. Vanshi
6 Sh. Shambhu Sh. Ram Kishan Mehto
7 Sh. Sonu Kumar Sh. Shambhu Prasad
8 Sh. Prabhu Kumar Sh. Laxman Rai
9 Sh. Deepak Kumar Sh. Sipahi Prasad
10 Dheerendra Sh. Raghunath
ID No.1108/06/05. 2/27
2. The reference was for 10 workmen, statement of claim
has been signed by only seven persons. Three persons i.e. Mr.
Vijay Kumar, Mr. Shambhu and Mr. Sonu Kumar contested the
case.
3. Workmen Vijay Kumar, Shambhu and Sonu Kumar's
case is that they started working with management since August
1995, March 1995 and February 1995 respectively as mechanic,
fitter and fitter respectively and their last drawn wages were Rs.
2,200/, Rs.2,200/ and Rs.2,500/. They were forced to work for
12 hours in one stretch but were paid wages only for 8 hours. They
were paid monthly salary of Rs. 1,300/ Rs.2,500/. Remaining
salary was deducted and reason told by the management was that
the money was being deposited in their ESI accounts. They were
never given appointment letters, identity cards, attendance sheets,
pay slips, ESIC and were deprived of minimum wages for which
they lodged a complaint on 14.01.2005 before Labour Inspector
who visited the premises of the management. The management had
locked its gate from out side and Labour Inspector was
misbehaved. After intervention of higher officials, the gate was
opened and on inspection by the Inspector, the claimants were
ID No.1108/06/05. 3/27
found working in the premises. The Labour Inspector directed
management to produce the record of the workmen in his office on
28.01.2005 but it did not produce and the next date was fixed as
07.02.2005. On that date and also on 09.02.2005, the management
did not come up with the record. After some days, in order to ward
off their liability of payment of wages to them, the management
fabricated and forged record and produced before the Inspector.
They issued demand notice on 02.03.2005 but request fell on deaf
ears. Since the termination of services, they are idle. They are
seeking reinstatement with full back wages.
4. Written statement is to the effect that only two
claimants were its workers and that there was no relationship of
employer and employee between it and rest of the claimants. The
labour inspector visited its premises on 20.01.2005 only to check if
the wages were being paid to the workmen as per Minimum Wages
Act or not. The dates of hearing before labour inspector as
07.02.2005 and 09.02.2005 have not been denied.
5. Following issue was framed on 07.09.2007:
1. As per terms of reference.
ID No.1108/06/05. 4/27
6. The reference was made in respect of 10 workmen but
workmen Shakal Deep, Ranjeet Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Prabhu
Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Shambhu and Sonu Kumar filed the
statement of claim. However, workmen Ashok Kumar, Rajesh &
Dhirendra did not file statement of claim. Workmen Shakal Deep,
Ranjeet Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Prabhu Kumar did not lead any
evidence. Hence, workmen Ashok Kumar, Rajesh, Dhirendra
Shakal Deep, Ranjeet Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Prabhu Kumar
are not entitled to any relief.
7. In order to establish the case, workmen Vijay Kumar,
Sonu and Shambhu tendered affidavits in evidence as Ex. WW1/A,
Ex. WW2/A and Ex. WW3/A respectively. Vijay Kumar tendered
his second affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/B. They deposed that
they were appointed with the management since August, 1995,
March, 1995 and February, 1995 respectively on the posts of
Mechanic, Fitter and Fitter respectively and their last drawn wages
were Rs.2,200/, Rs.2,200 and Rs.2,500/ respectively. It is further
deposed that the management was not giving them the facilities as
prescribed in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They were not given
ID No.1108/06/05. 5/27
appointment letter, attendance registers, ESI and gazetted /
registered holidays etc. The management used to force them to
work for 12 hours, but they were never paid overtime wages. They
filed a complaint against management in Labour Office on
14.01.05 to summon record from the management and for the relief
that the management be directed to provide them legal facilities.
The Labour Inspector visited the premises of the management and
they (workmen) were found working there. The Labour Inspector
directed the management to appear in his office and to file the
record of the claimants. They next deposed that the management
kept its door bolted from inside from 24.01.05 and 26.01.05 and
forced them to work continuously for two days for which they
complained to the Labour Office, Karampura on 27.01.2005. The
Higher Officers directed the Labour Inspector to make survey of
the complaint on 28.01.05. It is next deposed that after return to the
office, the proprietor of management terminated their services on
28.01.05. The management was feeling enraged due to filing of
complaint against it before the Labour Office and that is why their
services were terminated on 28.01.05 itself. They further preferred
a complaint on 31.01.05 to the Labour Office, Karampura against
termination of their services and for withholding of their earned
ID No.1108/06/05. 6/27
wages for the period from November, 2004 to 28.01.2005. Despite
best efforts by the Labour Office, the management did not take
them on duty. They relied upon documents from Ex. WW1/1 to
Ex. WW1/16. Most of the documents are complaints to the Labour
Department. Ex. WW1/8 is Labour Inspector reported dated
08.02.2005. Ex. WW1/15 is a photostate copy of inland letter
received by workman Vijay in which his address is mentioned as of
M/s. Shyam Electricals, B286, Manak Vihar, Tihar Gaon, New
Delhi. Remaining two claimants did not file such letter.
8. Management examined Mr. Shyam Lal who tendered
his affidavit in evidence as Ex. MW1/1. It is a badly framed
affidavit in which only few facts are mentioned and most of the
contents of the affidavit are in response to the parawise contents of
the statement of claim. He deposed that Sonu and Shambhu were
not his employees. He admitted relationship of employer and
employee with claimant Vijay Kumar, but his contention is that he
was appointed only in the month of November, 2004 and he
voluntarily left the job on 28.01.05 and did not return despite the
fact that the management had sent him a registered letter Ex.
MW1/2 which returned undelivered because Vijay Kumar had
ID No.1108/06/05. 7/27
refused to take delivery. He further deposed that date of
appointment as 10.11.2004 of Vijay Kumar is mentioned in
Register of Employment and Remuneration from Ex. MW1/5 to
Ex. MW1/33. In cross examination, he deposed that the firm had
closed down about two years ago.
Issue No. 1.
9. The workmen are claiming that they were employees
of the management. On the other hand, version of the management
is that only Vijay Kumar was its employee and that claimants Sonu
and Shambhu never worked with it. Their further version is that
Sh. Vijay Kumar was employed only on 10.11.04 and he
abandoned the job on 28.01.05 and did not return despite offer by
them.
On the other hand, it has been argued by ld. ARW that
it becomes clear from various complaints, Ex. WW1/1 to Ex.
WW1/16 to the various authorities that the claimants were working
with the management. He heavily relied upon Labour Inspector
report Ex. WW1/8 to argue that all three claimants were engaged
with the management.
ID No.1108/06/05. 8/27
10. Hence, onus is on the workmen to prove the
relationship in view of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani,
2002I, LLJ, 1053 it was held that :
".....In our opinion the Tribunal was not
right in placing the onus on the management
without first determining on the basis of
cogent evidence that the respondent had
worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside."
It was held by the Apex Court in R.M. Yallatti Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 (108), FLR 213 SCC as under : ID No.1108/06/05. 9/27 "Analysing the above decisions of this Court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the afore stated judgments we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workmen stepping the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workmen adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In case of termination of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workmen (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment of termination, if any, the wages register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statement made by the claimant / workmen will not suffice in the matter of discharge of ID No.1108/06/05. 10/27 the burden placed by law on the workmen to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere nonproduction of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workmen will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case."
Following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, AIR 2006 SC 110 are relevant: "10. In the light of the aforesaid, it was necessary for the workman to produce the relevant material to prove that he has actually worked with the employer for not less than 240 days during the period twelve calender months preceding the date of termination. What we find is that apart from the oral evidence the workman has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that he has worked for 240 days. No proof of ID No.1108/06/05. 11/27 receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in that regard was produced; no co worker was examined; muster roll produced by the employer has not been contradicted. It is improbable that workman who claimed to have worked with the appellant for such a long period would not possess any documentary evidence to prove nature of his engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the workman has failed to discharge his burden that he was in employment for 240 days during the preceding 12 month of the date of termination of his service. The Courts below have wrongly drawn an adverse inference for non production of the record of the workman for ten years. The scope of enquiry before the Labour Court was confined to only 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide the question of continuation of service for the purpose of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. The workman has never contended that he was regularly employed in the Panchayat for one year to claim the uninterrupted period of service as required under Section 25B(1) of the Act. In the fact & situation and in the light of the law on the subject, we find that the workman - respondent is not ID No.1108/06/05. 12/27 entitled for the protection or compliance of Section 25F of the Act before the service was terminated by the employer. As regards noncompliance of Section 25G and 25H suffice is to say that Witness Vinod Mishra examined by the appellant has stated that no seniority list was maintained by the department of daily wagers. In the absence of regular employment of the workman, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so called seniority no relief could be given to him for non compliance of provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have be proved."
11. Most of the documents relied upon by the workmen are complaints to the various authorities. Some complaints were filed by them directly and some complaints through union. All ID No.1108/06/05. 13/27 these documents have been prepared by the claimants or their union. There is no other independent document to show their relationship with the management. Only one document i.e. Labour Inspector report Ex. WW1/8 is exception to the rest of the documents produced by the workman. As per that report prepared by Ms. Anita Kalsi, Labour Inspector, the premises of the management was inspected by her on 20.01.05 and she found 9 employees working there. She did not mention the names of the employees whom she found working. Moreover, that report is slightly in contradiction to her earlier report dated 27.01.05 (placed on record during arguments by the management). It is mentioned in that report that an employee Om Prakash along with four others were found working in the premises when she has inspected it on 27.01.05. In that report / notice also, the names of employees have not been mentioned. So none of the complaints and Labour Inspector's report is able to establish the relationship of claimants with the management as of its employees.
All the three workmen deposed in cross examination that they had no document to show that they used to work with the management. It has been admitted by MW1 in examination in chief that claimant Vijay Kumar was its employees. In addition to ID No.1108/06/05. 14/27 affidavit in evidence, his statement dated 11.09.12 on oath is also on the file. Further admission of the management is in Register of Employment and Remuneration from Ex. MW1/5 to Ex. MW1/33 in which name of Vijay Kumar is mentioned as employee of M/s. Shyam Electricals. Ld. ARW argued that the said register cannot be taken into account because it does not bear the signatures of claimant Vijay Kumar. It is a strange plea taken by ARW because the said register along with other admissions of MW1 are helping the Court to reach to the conclusion that Vijay Kumar was employed with the management. The only reason of such kind of argument may be that the date of employment of claimant Vijay Kumar is mentioned in that register as 10.11.2004. This Court is not taking that date on its face. There is another document Ex. WW1/15 dated 28.10.1999. It is a photostate copy of inland letter received by Vijay Kumar on the address of the management. Had Vijay Kumar been appointed with the management only on 10.11.2004, he would not have received that letter five years ago i.e. on 28.10.1999 on the address of the management. There is no other document on the file to suggest that the workman Vijay Kumar was engaged with the management before 28.10.1999. So the date, month and year of employment is taken as 28.10.1999. ID No.1108/06/05. 15/27
12. The contention of ld. ARM is that Vijay Kumar has abandoned the job on 20.02.04 and in its support, he heavily relied upon the Register of Employment and Remuneration. Ex. WW1/5, Ex. WW1/10, Ex. WW1/17 and Ex. WW1/24 pertain to the attendance of Vijay Kumar for the months of February, 2004 to December, 2005 and January 2005 and February, 2005. Ex. MW1/24 i.e. for the month of February, 2005 shows that he started absenting from 28.01.2005. To the same effect is the version of the workman Vijay that his services were terminated on 28.01.2005. Registered letter and acknowledgment Ex. MW1/2 show that the letter was sent to one Sh. Vijay Kumar, C1/65, Madhu Vihar, Solanki Market, New Delhi59. The endorsement of the Postman is "refused". It is dated 11.02.05. That letter was not put by the management to WW1 Vijay Kumar in cross examination to verify whether address mentioned in it was his address in 2005. Affidavit in evidence Ex. WW1/A suggests the address of the workman Vijay Kumar as resident of Village Neemadhaha, Post Para Hamidpur, Distt. Pratapgarh. His local address as mentioned in additional affidavit Ex. WW1/B is resident of E434, Gali No. 77, Mahavir Enclave PartIII. Management did not file any other ID No.1108/06/05. 16/27 document to prove the address of Vijay Kumar as same which has been mentioned in the registered letter.
13. Ld. ARW submitted that he had moved an application for directions to the management. His application was dismissed but the effect of nonproduction of documents was kept in abeyance till the judgment. He submitted that adverse inference be taken against the management.
It is correct that as per Labour Inspector report Ex. WW1/8 dated 08.02.2005, management had not produced the record despite notice dated 27.01.2005 (placed on record by the management during arguments). It is also true that the claimants had moved an application for direction to the management to produce record such as appointment letter, attendance register, payment of wages register, overtime register, leave book, bonus register and record pertaining to a deduction of ESI and EPF in respect of its employees from 1999 to January, 2005. There is a letter dated 15.02.2005 Ex. MW1/3 on behalf of Shyam Electircals to Labour Inspector Ms. Anita Kalsi that it had not received the complaint filed by the workman and that on receipt of that complaint, they would produce the record before that office. ID No.1108/06/05. 17/27 Subsequent proceeding by the Labour Inspector are not on the file. Such proceedings can be guessed from the statement of claim itself in which it is mentioned that the management produced fabricated record before the Labour Inspector. It means that some record was made available to the Labour Inspector by management. In reply to the application of the workman, the management had taken the plea that it was not in the possession of the record other than it had produced earlier. Produced record is register of employment and remuneration from Ex. MW1/5 to Ex. MW1/33. The claimant did not point out the reason on the basis of which the said record can be said to be fabricated. As per that register, employee Vijay Kumar, Om Prakash, Raja Ram, Madan, Suresh etc. were working with it. It is the case of the management that they were not maintaining other record. In this background, no exception can be taken for not producing the record.
14. In view of the above discussion, the claimants Shambhu and Sonu Kumar have failed to prove their relationship with the management as of employees. Only Vijay Kumar established that he was employed with the management since 28.10.1999 and his services were done away w.e.f. 28.01.05. The ID No.1108/06/05. 18/27 management has failed to prove that Vijay Kumar abandoned the job.
Relief.
15. Ld. ARW claimed reinstatement with full back wages.
MW1 deposed in cross examination that management has ceased doing its business about two years ago. He further deposed that management was registered one and that he can produce its registration certificate. On the next date, he brought the registration certificate, but did not place on record the document regarding intimation of closure of firm to any authority. So management has failed to prove its plea that it is not functional.
16. It is settled law that even in case of illegal termination reinstatement is not automatic. In Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 709, Hon'ble Delhi High Court dealt with the question of reinstatement and back wages and observed in paragraphs 27 and 28 as under : "27. We find from the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the 1970s and 1980s that reinstatement with back wages ID No.1108/06/05. 19/27 was the norm in cases where the termination of the services of the workman was held inoperative. The decisions rendered in the 1990s, including the decision of the Constitution Bench in the Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh seem to suggest that compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is now the norm. In any case, since we are bound to follow the decision of the Constitution Bench, we, therefore, conclude that reinstatement is not the inevitable consequence of quashing an order of termination; compensation can be awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
28. Considering the facts of this case, we are persuaded to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages to the workman"
17. In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under : "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour ID No.1108/06/05. 20/27 Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
18. In Vinod Kumar & others vs Salwan Public School & others WP(c)5820/2011 dt.17.11.2014 Hon,ble Justice V. Kameshwar Rao has held as under:
11.Having considered the rival submissions of the counsels for the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court. It is a settled position of law that even if termination has been held to be illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is not to be granted automatically. The Labour Court is within its right to mould the relief by granting a lumpsum compensation. In fact, I note that the Labour Court has relied upon three judgments propounding the law that the Labour Court can mould a relief by granting lump sum compensation; the ID No.1108/06/05. 21/27 Labour Court is entitled to grant relief having regard to facts and circumstances of each case.
12. Further, the Supreme Court in the following judgments held as under:
(a) In the matter reported as Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684, the court has stated:
"However, even assuming that there had been a violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an award of reinstatement with entire back wages. This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under Section 11A must be exercised judiciously. The workman must be employed by State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. The respondent had not regularly served the appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his ID No.1108/06/05. 22/27 reinstatement with back wages. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if instead and in place of reinstatement of his services, a sum of Rs 75,000 is awarded to the respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments."
(b) In the matter reported as Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 127, the court has stated:
"23. Noncompliance with the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, although, may lead to the grant of a relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of the retrenched workmen, the same would not mean that such a relief is to be granted automatically or as a matter of course. 25 .....The appellant herein has clearly stated that the appointments of the respondents have been made in violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam. An appointment made in violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam is void. The same, however, although would not mean that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the question as to whether the termination of workmen from services is ID No.1108/06/05. 23/27 legal or not but the same should have to be considered to be an important factor in the matter of grant of relief. The Municipal Corporation deals with public money. Appointments of the respondents were made for carrying out the work of assessment. Such assessments are done periodically. Their services, thus, should not have been directed to be continued despite the requirements therefor having come to an end. It, therefore, in our considered view, is not a case where the relief of reinstatement should have been granted."
(c) In the matter reported as Talwara Coop. Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 486, the court has stated:
"8. Grant of a relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic. The Industrial Courts while exercising their power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are required to strike a balance in a situation of this nature. For the said purpose, certain relevant factors, as for example, nature of service, the mode and manner of recruitment viz. whether the appointment had been made in accordance with the statutory rules so far as a public sector undertaking is concerned, etc., should be taken into consideration."
(d) In the matter reported as Jagbir Singh v. ID No.1108/06/05. 24/27 Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, the court has stated :
"7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. ...
14. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."
19. Vijay Kumar worked with the management from ID No.1108/06/05. 25/27 28.10.1999 to 28.01.2005 i.e. for six years. He deposed that since then he is idle because he did not get any work from any working place. He did not place on record the name of any concern or business establishment visited by him in the search of work. Several business houses can be seen doing business even in small cities. He is a young man and he cannot be presumed sitting idle after his services were terminated. The trial of the case is lingering since 2005 i.e. for the last 10 years. Lapse of such a long time is compelling this Court not to grant reinstatement to workman Vijay Kumar. Taking into the account the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reinstatement and full back wages is not the just relief. In lieu of those reliefs, a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) is granted to workman Vijay Kumar.
20. Award is passed accordingly. The management is directed to pay the said amount to the workman Vijay Kumar within a month from the date of publication of this award, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @12 per cent per annum from today till realization.
ID No.1108/06/05. 26/27
21. Workmen Shambhu, Sonu Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Rajesh, Dhirendra Shakal Deep, Ranjeet Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Prabhu Kumar are not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly.
22. The requisite number of copies be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for publication of the award. File be consigned to record room.
Dictated to the Steno & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 27.03.2015. POLCXVII/KKD, DELHI. ID No.1108/06/05. 27/27