Delhi District Court
Joginder Kumar vs Sdmc on 24 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GOEL:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Ref: F.24/(523)/Lab/SD/2020/1666
Dated: 19.01.2021
POIT NO : 30/2021
Workman
Sh. Joginder Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o RZ-26P/27, Indra Park, Gali No. 33,
Palam Colony, Delhi-110045.
Safai Karamchari
Lastly posted at South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi
through General Secretary,
Municipal Employee's Union
Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi-54.
Vs.
The Management of
M/s. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner (South)
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee Civic Centre,
J. L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002.
Date of Institution : 19.02.2021
Date of presentation : 06.04.2015
before this court
Date of Arguments : 24.11.2023
Date of Award : 24.11.2023
AWAR D
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 1/21
1. The Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory
of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties named
above for adjudication to this Tribunal vide notification F.24/
(523)/Lab/SD/2020/1666, dated: 19.01.2021 with following terms of
the reference:-
"Whether the services of the workman Sh. Joginder
Kumar, S/o Sh. Randhir Singh have been terminated by
the management illegally and unjustifiably, if so, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?
2. Statement of Claim has been filed by workman stating that he
joined into the employment of management w.e.f. 06.11.2006 as
Safai Karamchari and initially, he was taken in job as daily wager
employee and was paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time
under the Minimum Wages Act while his counterparts who were
discharging the same duties were being paid their salary in proper
pay scale and allowances.
3. It is stated that workman discharged his duties sincerely and
having uninterrupted service record he discharged his duties till
05.04.2010 and on 06.04.2010, he suffered from paralysis and hence,
he could not join his duties. It is stated that he informed his higher
authorities in this regard and thereafter, he started recovering in
September 2015 and on 24.10.2015, he was completely declared fit
and he approached the management regarding joining of his duties in
September/October 2015. It is stated that workman approached his
higher authorities number of times but he was informed every time
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 2/21
that his file has been sent to higher authorities and as soon as any
decision will be taken, same will be communicated to him. It is
stated that management has not taken the workman on duty and same
amounts to termination of his services and said action of
management is totally illegally and unjust.
4. It is further stated that no opportunity of being heard at all was
given to workman and he has not committed any misconduct and no
memo or charge sheet was served upon him and no domistic inquiry
was conducted against him and thus action of the management is
violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constituion of India. It is
stated that action of the management clearly tantamount to adopting
unfair labour practice as their action is in clear violation of
conditions as provided in 5th Schedule of the I.D. Act. It was stated
that workman could not raise the present dispute earlier as his wife
was suffering from T. B, in the year 2015 and a long treatment of
about 8 months was taken by her and workman also met with an
accident on 11.03.2017 and his left was fractures which was operated
upon in Balaji Hosital, Paschim Vihar Delhi.
5. It is further stated that demand notice has been served upon the
management by Regd. post vide communication dated 26.12.2017
which has been duly received in their office but no reply has been
received and it is presumed that demand has been rejected. It is
stated that conciliation proceedings were also initiated but same
resulted into failure due to adamant and non co-operative attitude of
management. Hence, present claim was filed by workmen aforesaid
seeking relief as per prayer clause of claim.
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 3/21
6. Written Statement has been filed by the management wherein
it has taken objections that present claim is barred by Section 10-4A
of the I. D. Act as claim is highly time barred and there is no
provision for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed time of one
year. It was also stated that no specific date of termination has been
mentioned in the statement of claim and engagement of claimant was
for specific purpose, hence the disengagement of claimant is not
retrenchment in view of the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D.
Act. It was also stated that claimant has not worked for 240 days in a
calender year as such he is not entitled for any relief. It was stated
that workman was given show cause notice on 17.11.2016 to join his
duties and after detailed inquiry, the workman was terminated. It was
also stated that workman was a daily wager and his job was never
permanent. It was also stated that workman has not filed a single
document to prove his contentions and no notice was ever served or
received by management. It was also stated that last para is prayer
clause of statement claim filed by workman which is false and wrong
and same may be dismissed with costs.
7. Rejoinder was filed by workman to the written statement of
management wherein contents of claim were reiterated and
reaffirmed and those of written statement were denied.
8. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were
framed by my Ld. predecessor on 22.11.2021:-
(i) The management has conducted legal and fair inquiry
in accordance with principles of natural justice before
termination of the services of workman?OPM
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 4/21
(ii) Whether the present claim is barred u/s 10-4A of the
I.D. Act?OPM
(iii) As per terms of reference?
9. To prove his case, the workman Sh. Joginder Kumar examined
himself as WW-1 and he relied upon several documents in support of
his case which are Ex. WW-1/1 to WW-1/8. After his examination,
W.E. was closed by AR for workman.
10. On the other hand, the management produced Sh. Iqbal Singh,
Sanitation Superintendent, SDMC and was duly cross-examined.
11. Arguments heard as addressed by both the parties. I have gone
through the pleadings, documentary as well as oral evidence on
record.
12. It is the case of workman in nutshell that he joined into the
employment of management w.e.f. 06.11.2006 as Safai Karamchari
and initially, he was taken in job as daily wager employee and was
paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the
Minimum Wages Act while his counterparts who were discharging
the same duties were being paid their salary in proper pay scale and
allowances. It is further pleaded that workman discharged his duties
sincerely and having uninterrupted service record he discharged his
duties till 05.04.2010 and on 06.04.2010, he suffered from paralysis
and hence, he could not join his duties. It is pleaded that he informed
his higher authorities in this regard and thereafter, he started
recovering in September 2015 and on 24.10.2015, he was completely
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 5/21
declared fit and he approached the management regarding joining of
his duties in September/October 2015. It is pleaded that workman
approached his higher authorities number of times but he was
informed every time that his file has been sent to higher authorities
and as soon as any decision will be taken, same will be
communicated to him. It is further pleaded that management has not
taken the workman on duty and same amounts to termination of his
services and said action of management is totally illegally and
unjust.
13. On the other hand, it is the case of management that present
claim is barred by Section 10-4A of the I. D. Act as claim is highly
time barred and there is no provision for condonation of delay
beyond the prescribed time of one year. It is pleaded that no specific
date of termination has been mentioned in the statement of claim and
engagement of claimant was for specific purpose, hence the
disengagement of claimant is not retrenchment in view of the
provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D. Act. It is also pleaded that
claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calender year as such he is
not entitled for any relief. It is further the case of management that
workman was given show cause notice on 17.11.2016 to join his
duties and after detailed inquiry, the workman was terminated. It is
also pleaded that workman was a daily wager and his job was never
permanent.
14. My issue wise findings are as under:-
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 6/21
15. Issue No. 1. The management has conducted legal
and fair inquiry in accordance with principles of natural
justice before termination of the services of workman?OPM
16. The AR for the workmen has contended that the services of
the workman were illegally terminated by the management in
complete violations of the principles of natural justice as in case of
absent, he was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself.
Reliance is placed upon South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.
Ramesh Singh, W.P.(C) No. 11226/2020 decided on
05.01.2021, and without complying the provisions of Section 25F,
G and H of the I.D. Act. Moreover, it is also highlighted that the
management never intimated the workmen about his termination,
and it is before this court by way of written statement brought to the
notice of the tribunal that his services were terminated in the year
2017 by way of office order issued by management.
17. The management on the other hand argued that the workman
remained unauthorizedly absent since 2010 and never informed the
management about his absence. This same stance is maintained by
the management in its written statement as well as the Affidavit of
MW-1 filed before this tribunal. However, this argument of the
management does not stand in view of the evidence placed on record
by the workman. The workman has placed on record the several
representations given to the management Ex. WW1/7 and Ex. MW-
1/W1 informing the management about his medical illness because
of which he was not able to perform his duties w.e.f. 06.04.2010.
Moreover, the very notings of the management Ex. WW-1/6, depicts
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 7/21
that the management received the applications of workman
alongwith medical fitness certificate as Ex. WW-1/8 for taking him
back on duty.
18. Furthermore, it has come on record that workman has duly
intimated about his illness to management in April-May 2010 that he
suffered from paralysis and in this regard, the MW-1 duly admitted
the authenticity of Ex. WW-1/6, WW-1/7 and MW-1/1. However,
no action seems to have been taken on same. Therefore, in view of
the very notings of the management, as well as the documentary
evidence placed on record by the workmen, the argument of the
management does not stand that the workman remained absent w.e.f.
06.04.2010 without intimating the management about the same.
19. Even otherwise, had this been the case of the management that
the workman remained authorized absent w.e.f. 06.04.2010, the
management is supposed to conduct a departmental/domestic inquiry
prior to the termination of the services of the workman concerned.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in South Delhi Municipal
Corporation vs. Ramesh Singh, W.P.(C) No. 11226/2020
decided on 05.01.2021 has held that the principles of natural
justice would apply to a daily wager and the workman can not be
terminated without offering him the opportunity of being heard. The
relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below:
"8. Mr. Birbal says that respondent/workman during the course of
the inquiry by the vigilance department had made a statement that he had indulged in the aforementioned activity as complained of by Smt. Saroj.
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 8/218.1 Mr. Birbal, however, does accept that in the reply to the show cause notice, the stand taken by the respondent/workman was that the said statement was made under coercion.
9. Mr. Birbal also accepts the fact that the respondent/workman was given no opportunity to either cross-examine the complainant i.e. Smt. Saroj or to lead in his defence any evidence before the enquiry officer.
9.1 Mr. Birbal, however, says that since the respondent/workman was a daily-wager this procedure was not adopted.
10. Be that as it may, in my view, if nothing less, the principles of natural justice would definitely apply even to a daily-wager.
11. The respondent/workman, in the very least, should have been confronted by the complainant i.e. Smt. Saroj so that he could have cross-examined her."
20. Therefore, as per the position laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the aforementioned case, the workman concerned despite being a daily wager is entitled to the domestic/departmental inquiry. Merely because he was a daily wager and not a regular and permanent employee of the management, the basic tenets of the law i.e. principles of natural justice can not go in vacuum and resume once he becomes a permanent employee. These basic tenets of the law, just like the industrial law, always remains and does not discriminate between the part-time, seasonal muster-roll, daily wagers, regular, permanent or any other category of the workman for POIT-30/2021 Page No. 9/21 that matter. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the tje services of the workman were terminated by the management w.e.f. 02.01.2017 as admitted by the MW-1 in cross-examination dated 12.09.2023 at Page No. 2. The said witness also conceded that no charge sheet was given to the workman nor any inquiry was conducted before terminating his services and that no show cause notice was given. The said witnes volutarily deposed that there is no requirement of giving charge sheet or holding any inquiry or giving any show cause notice. He again deposed that show cause notice was given to the workman, however, he failed to show any documentary evidence on record to show that any show cause notice was given to the workman prior to terminating his services on 02.01.2017. It is also notable that it is a settled position of law that non-issuance of charge sheet and non-holding of inquiry by the management amounts to violation of priniciples of natural justice.
21. It is an admitted position that no domestic/departmental inquiry was conducted before terminating the services of the workman concerned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MCD vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 2989 of 2002 decided on 27.08.2007, where in similar facts and circumstances the termination of the services of the workman was held illegal and non- est. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below:
"16. The counsel for the respondent workman has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Jain (supra) where the circumstances were similar to POIT-30/2021 Page No. 10/21 the case in hand, the employee having indulged in a misconduct, his services were terminated without holding a departmental enquiry. After taking note of the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held as below:
Para 4 : Unfortunately, for the appellant the impugned order of termination extracted above does not show that it was passed after a departmental enquiry wherein the disciplinary authority was satisfied about the said misconduct. On the contrary, it seeks to terminate the services of Respondent 1 by way of a simple discharge and not by way of any penalty. It is only during the proceedings before the Labour Court that a different stand was taken that it was by way of penalty. This stand was obviously taken by the appellant because the order of simplicities termination would have remained stillborn as Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was admittedly not complied with by the appellant. With this difficulty staring in the face, a stand was taken that it was by way of penalty. If it was by way of penalty then at least a regular departmental enquiry had to be conducted. It was also required to be followed by the enquiry officer's report resulting in adverse finding against Respondent 1 and its acceptance by the disciplinary authority. Nothing of this sort was done. There is neither the enquiry officer's report holding Respondent 1 guilty of charge which in fact was never framed against him nor is there any acceptance of such a finding of the enquiry officer by the disciplinary authority.POIT-30/2021 Page No. 11/21
In fact the disciplinary authority has never held Respondent 1 guilty of any charge of misconduct....
17. Same is the situation even in the present case. The petitioner MCD did not conduct any departmental enquiry prior to issuance of the termination order and consequently, the impugned order of termination is illegal and non est. As observed above, even a implicate discharge order, passed without following the due process of law is vocative of Section 25F of the Act. The respondent workman before being visited by such a grave civil consequence as termination of service was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing followed by a departmental enquiry.
There is force in the plea of the respondent workman that the petitioner MCD was well entitled to prove the misconduct even before the Labour Court. However, neither was such a plea taken in the written statement, nor was any other effort made by the petitioner MCD to seek an opportunity to prove the allegations leveled against the respondent workman.
22. The above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the admitted position and the mandate of the law, this tribunal holds that the management has clearly committed unfair labour practice as mentioned in Fifth Schedule at Item No. 5(a), (b) and (f) of the I.D. Act by terminating the services of the workman concerned by way of victimization and in colourable exercise of employer's rights as no proper grounds/reasons were POIT-30/2021 Page No. 12/21 afforded as to why the services of the workman were terminated. This tribunal further holds that the management did not follow the principles of natural justice as no domestic/departmental inquiry was conducted and his services were terminated on 02.01.2017 with undue haste without offering any opportunity to being heard. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
23. Issue No. 2. Whether the present claim is barred u/s 10-4A of the I.D. Act?OPM :-
24. The management has taken this contention in its written statement that the claim of the claimant is not maintainable on account of delay and latches since the present claim has been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal in the year 2011 i.e. after 4 years of his termination and as such his claim is liable to be dismissed.
25. The workman on the other hand contended that he discharged his duties sincerely and having uninterrupted service record he discharged his duties from 06.11.2006 till 05.04.2010 and on 06.04.2010, he suffered from paralysis and hence, he could not join his duties. It has come on record that he informed his higher authorities in this regard and thereafter, he started recovering in September 2015 and on 24.10.2015, he was completely declared fit and he approached the manageament regarding joining of his duties in September/October 2015. Thereafter, managament has neither taken the workman on duty nor communicated the decision taken on his representation. It has also come on record that workman could not raise the present dispute earlier as his wife was suffering from T. POIT-30/2021 Page No. 13/21 B, in the year 2015 and a long treatment of about 8 months was taken by her and workman also met with an accident on 11.03.2017 and his left was fractures which was operated upon in Balaji Hosital, Paschim Vihar Delhi. So in these circumstances, it is clear that he approached the Tribunal against the illegal actions of management at the earliest opportunity. Moreover, the brunt of non-communication of the decision of management of illegal termination of workman cannot be borne solely by the workman.
26. The representations and the documentary evidence placed on the record by the workman supports the case of the workman that he had never shown any laxity about his case but have approached the management time and again consistently. On the other hand, not even a single document is placed on record by the management suggestive of the fact that they even bothered to reply to the workman. The management did not even take any such plea in this regard.
27. The irony of the present situation is that it is the management itself who has delayed the case of the workman incessantly and taking the objections of delay and latches before this tribunal objecting to the maintainability of the present dispute. Further, not once the workman was communicated that he had been terminated by the management in the year 2017 as contended by the management in its written statement. Therefore, this tribunal is of the opinion that there is no merit in the argument of the management that the present dispute is barred on the grounds of delay and latches.
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 14/2128. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1351, observed the following in Para 11 of the judgment:
"11. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal."
29. Even though the management has taken the plea of delay and latches, however, it has not shown any prejudice suffered due to this purported delay. The AR for the workman argued that it is the workman who has suffered due to the intentional and deliberate delay caused by the management to the workman as he had remained unemployed all this while since the date of his illegal termination. Hence, in view of the discussion above, this tribunal holds that the present dispute is very well maintainable and the same cannot be POIT-30/2021 Page No. 15/21 termed as delay in raising the present dispute. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
30. Issue No. 3. As per terms of reference?:-
31. Since this Tribunal has already held under issue No. 1 that no inquiry was ever conducted by management prior to termination of workman, now this tribnal has to see if the management has complied with the provisions of section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act.
32. The management witness (MW-1) has admitted in his cross-
examination dated 12.09.2023 that "It is correct that no notice or notice pay in lieu of notice either offered or paid to the worker while terminating his services on 02.01.2017. Likewise, no retrenchment compensation was either offered or paid to the workman.... It is correct that similarly placed Safai Karamchari who joined in the year 2006-07 to till date are still working with the management. No seniority list was exhibited on or before terminating the services of the workman...... It is correct that similarly situated workers have been regularised in service in regular pay scale and that juniors of the workman are still working with the management".
33. The management himself admitted that the conditions precedent to Section 25F are not followed, not only this, the services of the workman were terminated in violation of the principles of the last come first go as no seniority list was either displayed or exhibited before their termination. It is a well settled position of law that the provisions contained in Section 25F(a) and (b) are mandatory and termination of service of workman, without giving one month's POIT-30/2021 Page No. 16/21 notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation is null and void/illegal/inoperative as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532. The relevant portion is as follows:
"19. Section 25 couched in negative form. It imposes a restriction on the employer's right to retrench a workman and lays down that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less then one year under an employer shall be retrenched until he has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or he has been paid wages for the period of notice and he has also been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and notice in the prescribed manner has been served upon the appropriate Government or the authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
20. This Court has repeatedly held that the provisions contained in Section 25F(a) and (b) are mandatory and termination of the service of a workman, which amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) without giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation is null and void/illegal/inoperative."POIT-30/2021 Page No. 17/21
34. Moreover, onto the factual aspect of the case for the purpose of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act, the management witness admitted that "it is correct that similarly placed safai karamchari who joined in 2006-07 to till date are still working with management. No seniority list was exhibited on or before terminating the services of the workman...... It is correct that juniors of workman are still working with management" . The said witness also admitted that the similarly situated workers as Safai Karamchari have been regularized in service in the regular payscale. It implies that not only the management terminated the services of the workman violating the provisions of Section 25G of I.D. Act but have also regularized the services of co-workers of the workmen, whereas, the workman was discriminated against by the management. The division bench of Patna High Court in Gaffar and Ors. vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 1983(31)BLJR282 have highlighted the importance of Rule 77 of I.D Rules and failing to implement the same renders the termination/retrenchment illegal. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below:
"4. The Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 which is mentioned below requires preparation and publication of a list of all workmen in the concerned category at least 7 days in advance:
Maintenance of seniority list of workmen--The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy POIT-30/2021 Page No. 18/21 thereof to be pasted on a Notice Board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the Industrial Establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.
This provision has been included in the Rules so that the object of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act may be effectively achieved. The Industrial rule relating to retrenchment of 'last come, first go' where other things are equal has been recognised for long and affords a healthy safeguard against discrimination. The principle was given statutory recognition by amendment of the Act in 1953. The Rule 77 was framed with a view to facilitate a retrenched workman to verify that he is not being discriminated against otherwise it may be impracticable for him to collect relevant information and' enforce his right. The minimum time of seven days allowed for this purpose is not unnecessarily long, for the workman should get an adequate opportunity to scrutinize the correctness of the seniority list before he is thrown out Viewed from this angle, it should be held that the requirement mentioned in Rule 77 is mandatory and its violation renders an order of retrenchment illegal."
35. The similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, AIR 2010 SC 1116. In view of the admitted position and the mandate of the law, this tribunal holds that the management has clearly committed unfair labour practice as mentioned in Fifth POIT-30/2021 Page No. 19/21 Schedule at Item No. 5(a), (b) and (f) of the I.D. Act by terminating the services of the workman concerned by way of victimization and in colourable exercise of employer's rights as no proper grounds/reasons were afforded as to why the services of the workman. This tribunal further holds that the management did not follow the principles of natural justice as no domestic/departmental inquiry was conducted and his services were terminated on 02.01.2017 with undue haste without offering any opportunity to being heard. Even in case of termination simpliciter, the management contravened Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act.
36. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that management has been successful in proving that workman could not perform his duties after 06.04.2010 due to his illness. When the workman failed to perform any work after 2010, hence rule of 'No work No pay' would be applicable to the present case. The interest of justice would be met if workman is granted a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement with management. The workman suffered paralysis in the year 2010 and recovered in the year September 2015. The management terminated his services in January 2017, however, he was not informed about his termination at the end of management till the filing of present dispute. The minimum wages during said relevant period i.e. during the year 2015 to 2017 i.e. till the date of his termination were approximately Rs. 14,000/- per month (revised from time to time). Section 25 (F) was not complied with by management. Based on these statistics as this Tribunal is not inclined to reinstate him, the compensation calculated on the basis of salary is hereby given alonwith damages for non-
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 20/21compliance of Section 25 (F), (G), (H) of the I.D. Act. This Tribunal deems Rs. 3,50,000/- as sufficient compensation for workman in this case. Hence, this issue is decided partly in favour of workman.
37. Relief : In view of my findings on the foregoing issues, this tribunal holds that the workmen Sh. Joginder Kumar S/o Late Sh. Randhir Singh is granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs and Fifty Thousand) in lieu of reinstatement with management. The management is directed to implement the award within 60 days of its publication, failing which, the management will be liable to pay an interest of 8% per annum from the date the award to till the date of its realization. The award is passed accordingly.
38. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY GOEL GOEL Date:
2023.11.25 Announced in open Tribunal 11:07:18 +0530 on this 24.11.2023 (AJAY GOEL) POIT-I/RADC/New Delhi.POIT-30/2021 Page No. 21/21