Delhi District Court
Sushil Kumar S/O Shri Sohan Lal vs (Ii) M/S Salora International (P) Ltd on 4 March, 2014
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
BEFORE SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL: POLC - XI:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
REFERENCE CASE (ID) No. 1244/04
UNIQUE CASE ID No. 02402C0007891996
In the matter of:
Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal,
R/o A25, Vishwakarma Park,
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi.
Through: Sh. R. S. Chauhan, Authorised Representative / General Secretary,
Janta Labour Union Delhi
10925, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005
......... Workman
V/s.
(I) M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd.
D - 13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - II,
New Delhi 110020
(II) M/s Salora International (P) Ltd.
D - 13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - II,
New Delhi 110020
..........Management
Date of Institution : 13.11.1996
Date of reserving for award : 20.02.2014
Date of award : 04.03.2014
AWARD
1. TERMS OF REFERENCE
Vide Order No. F.24(3567)/96Lab./4167681 dated 30.08.1996 the Secretary (Labour),
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi made the following reference under section 10 (1) (c)
and section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication by the Court:
"Whether the services of Shri Sushil Kumar have been terminated illegally
and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he
Page 1 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. CASE OF WORKMAN AS PLEADED IN STATEMENTOFCLAIM
(i) Workman was appointed on 14.02.1983 as Wireman. Afterwards, he was
promoted as Technician and his last drawn salary was Rs.1162/ per month. Workman
worked with hard labour and honestly and did not give any opportunity to the
management to have any complaint against him.
(ii) Management was violating the laws absolutely / openly. On the demand of the
workman for legal facilities, management got annoyed and terminated the services of
workman on 23.4.1992. Workman alongwith other coworkmen had sent a demand
notice dated 16.03.1991 demanding the legal facilities; on account of which management
got annoyed and started to plan to remove the workman from services and lastly, by
creating a drama, on 20.4.1992 (sic) management gave an order to workman to effect that
workman has been transferred to Kashipur, UP Unit despite the fact that at the time of
joining the services with the management, management did not put any such condition
that workman may have to go outside Delhi for service. This was an excuse only for
illegally removing the workman from the services.
(iii) Workman had filed a civil suit for stopping his illegal transfer to Kashipur, UP
but the ld. Civil Court returned the said suit by saying that matter regarding wrongful
transfer pertains to jurisdiction of Labour Court and workman should approach the
Labour Court. Since 22.4.1992 management kept on calling the workman at Darya Ganj
Godown Factory and assuring to take the workman back into services by saying that
management will settle the matter with workman after workman withdraws the above
said case in the Civil Court. Workman continuously visited the management for
Page 2 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
demanding the work but after the decision of Civil Court on 15.01.1994 management
told the workman that workman need not to visit the factory and management will not
take the workman back into service.
(iv) At the time of appointment of the workman and during his service period,
management had forcibly taken the signatures of the workman on certain plain papers,
vouchers, forms, cards, etc. etc., some of which were having revenue stamp affixed
thereon, while the others were not having revenue stamp affixed thereon. Workman
signed the said documents under the compulsion of service.
(v) On 30.4.1992 workman raised a demand, by telling about his financial crisis, for
earned salary from month of April 1992 to 30.04.1992 but on this demand being raised
by workman, management illegally removed the workman from the services. At the
time of removing the workman from the services neither the workman was charged with
any charges nor any money payment was made. Further, the management at the time of
removing of workman from service did not pay 'notice pay', service compensation etc.
etc. nor conducted any enquiry.
(vi) The removal of the workman from services of management is illegal,
unjustifiable, against the principles of natural justice, with a retaliatory feeling and
inspired by malafides which is in violation of provisions of Section 25 F & 25 G of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(vii) The management was attempting to criminally intimidate the workman and to
cause the workman to be beaten. Also management was trying to forcibly get the matter
settled which is illegal, unjustified and antisocial.
Page 3 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
With these averments, workman prayed for passing an award, in his favour and
against the management, directing the management to take the workman back into
service with full back wages.
3. CASE AS PLEADED BY MANAGEMENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
DEFENCE.
At the outset management pleaded that M/s. Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. and
M/s. Salora International Ltd. are the same company. As per management, name of the
company in the beginning was M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. which afterwards
became M/s Electronics Consortium Ltd.; subsequently, it became M/s E. C. P. Ltd. and
finally name of the company was changed to M/s Salora International Ltd.
In its written statement the management admitted the averments made by
workman regarding his date of appointment, post, promotion and last drawn salary.
However, as per management, workman willfully disobeyed the orders (Ex.WW1/M1)
(dated 22.04.1992) of the management through which workman was transferred to
Kashipur unit of the company. Further, as per management, certified standing orders of
the management which are statutorily binding on the workman too contains a clause
which provides right to the management to transfer a workman. Workman was ordered
to be transferred to Kashipur Unit of the company w.e.f. 23.04.1992 vide letter / order
Ex. WW1/M1 dated 22.04.1992. Management denied the averment of workman that his
transfer was an excuse to remove him from service and that there was no term that
workman can be transferred out of Delhi. Management denied the averment that
management was violating the laws. As per management, workman had been transferred
to Kashipur, UP factory w.e.f. 23.04.1992 and, therefore, there was no question of
workman being called at Darya Ganj factory or being assured of to be taken on duty at
Page 4 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
Darya Ganj factory. As alleged, after transfer of workman to Kashipur, workman had no
right left to be taken on duty in any factory of the management at Delhi/New Delhi.
Further, workman's signatures were never taken on plain papers, vouchers, etc.
Management has denied the averments of the workman regarding workman having been
removed from service on 30.04.1992. As per management, workman was dismissed
w.e.f. 28.09.1995 vide letter dated 27.09.1995 after holding proper and valid domestic
enquiry into the charges of chargesheet, Ex.WW1/M6, dated 07.09.1994 in which
charges were found to have been proved against workman. As alleged, Sh. Arun
Lakhotia, BJ92, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi was appointed as enquiry officer and
enquiry officer gave workman various dates to appear in the enquiry but workman
willfully absented from enquiry and enquiry officer had to proceed exparte against
workman. Also, as alleged, before dismissal of workman notice dated 22.04.1995 was
issued to workman to showcause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from
service and alongwith the said notice copies of enquiry report and enquiry proceedings
were also sent to workman. Workman filed explanation dated 22.05.1995 which was
considered before dismissal of workman vide letter dated 27.09.1995. As per
management, dismissal of the workman is fully legal, valid and justified and Section 25
F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted in this case. As per
management, workman had taken his due earned wage for April 1992. As alleged,
workman failed to accept his account which included encashment of due earned leaves.
4. REJOINDER
In the rejoinder, workman denied the case as pleaded by management in its WS
and reaffirmed the case as pleaded in the statementofclaim.
5. ISSUES
Page 5 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
On 04.12.1998, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether fair and proper domestic enquiry has not been held?
(ii) Whether the services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably.
6. EVIDENCE & ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE.
Workman appeared in witness box as WW1 Sh. Sushil Kumar. His evidence
was closed on 25.09.2000 on the statement of Sh. R. S. Chauhan AR / Adv.
Management examined MW1 Sh. Arun Lakhotia and ME was closed on 13.09.2001 on
the statement of AR of the management. Vide order dated 13.11.2002 it was held that no
fair and proper enquiry had been conducted and the issue was decided against the
management and in favour of workman.
7. EVIDENCE BEFORE COURT ON CHARGES AGAINST WORKMAN AND
ORDER OF COURT.
Vide order dated 27.05.2003 case was adjourned for management's evidence on
the charges. Management examined MW2 Mr. Raghunath Singh and closed the
evidence on 15.01.2004 on the statement of Mr. R. S. Lakhotia, AR. Workman filed his
affidavit in WE. Vide order dated 16.07.2007 Court passed the following order :
"ID no. 1244/04
16.07.2007
Present: Workman in person with AR.
AR for the management.
AR for workman has filed an affidavit of evidence on merits.
Copy supplied to the AR for the management.
AR for the management submits that he does not want to
further crossexamine the workman after filing of this affidavit and that he
adopts his earlier crossexamination dt. 25.09.2000.
In view of the submissions of the AR for the management, AR for the
workman request to close the Workman Evidence.
Heard. At the request of the AR for workman, Workman evidence
stands closed.
Page 6 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
Put up on 16.8.2007 for final arguments."
On 18.11.2009, ld. predecessor of this Court passed an award holding as under:
"16. Hence the order of the Management to dismiss / terminate the workman
was illegal and non est in the eyes of law. Now the position of the order of
'dismissal / termination" is that it was never passed. The workman is hence
held entitled to be continuing his services without any break therein. He is
further held entitled to receive all the consequential benefits.
17. As an illegal order of the Management kept the workman devoid of his
benefits for about 17 long years, this court allows an interest @ 6% P.A. On all
the outstanding money / wages / salary / benefits etc. This interest will start
accruing from the date the money became due to the workman till the date of its
realization....."
8. ORDER OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT
Management challenged the order dated 13.11.2002 and award dated 18.11.2009
in W. P. (C) No. 6740/2010 and vide order dated 18.02.2013 Hon'ble Delhi High Court
held as under:
"10. Thus, it has been categorically laid down that after the enquiry issue is
decided against the management, the evidence is required to be independently
considered by the Trial Court in case the management seeks leave to adduce
evidence at the appropriate time which has been done in the present case, and
only thereafter a finding can be arrived at with regard to the misconduct.
During the enquiry of misconduct by the Trial Court it is bound to consider any
fresh material that is also placed on record dehors the disciplinary enquiry
material.
11. In view of the legal position not having been adhered to by the learned
Trial Court, the impugned award dated 18th November, 2009 is set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to decide the matter afresh
in light of the aforesaid legal position. Parties are directed to appear before the
learned Trial Court on 11th March, 2013.
12. Petition and application are disposed of. Trial Court record be sent
back. The amount of Rs.1,10,000/ deposited by the Petitioner in this Court,
which is lying in the FDR, shall be subject to the final outcome of the matter
before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to
Page 7 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
pass necessary directions in this regard".
9. ORDER OF HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH
COURT
Workman challenged the order dated 18.02.2013 in L. P. A. No. 366/13 wherein
on 22.11.2013, Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed the following order:
"Counsel for the appellant submitted that the only purpose of filing this appeal
against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge by which the matter
has been remanded back to the Industrial Adjudicator to decide it afresh in the
light of the legal position stated in the judgment was that the appellant is
having an apprehension that after remand the respondent? management shall
try to delay the matter by seeking adjournments for adducing additional evidence. Counsel for the respondent submitted that evidence has already been led not only on behalf of the management but also by the appellant workman and no further evidence is to be adduced by the management and both the parties would be addressing their respective submissions before the Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the evidence already adduced. In view of the aforesaid, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
Today counsel for the appellant had also submitted that respondent management has not even complied with the order passed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the respondent very fairly submitted that necessary payment shall be released in favour of the appellant within one month."
10. ARGUMENTS I have heard Sh. R. S. Chauhan. AR for the workman and Sh. Anurag Lakhotia, Adv. for management. Material on judicial file carefully perused. Ld. counsel for the management relied upon case law reported as (i) Dr. Anil Bajaj Vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research & Anr. (2002) LLR 308 (SC); (ii) Agra Electric Supply Company Ltd. Vs. Alladin & others 1969 II LLJ 540 (SC); (iii) M/s.
Page 8 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
Delhi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court X and Anr., 2014 LLR 126;
(iv) Inder Dev Yadav Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. 2002 LLR 261 (Delhi High Court); (v) Shri Gian Chand Vs. Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration 1994 LLR 319 (Delhi High Court Division Bench); (vi) M/s. Salora International Limited Vs. POLCX & Anr. W.P. (Civil) No.2817/2006 Judgment dated 28/09/2007 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sistani, Judge Hon'ble Delhi High Court; (vii) Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s. Globe Detective Agency (P) Ltd. & Ors. 2007 LLR 390 (Delhi High Court); (viii) Mukesh Khanna Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & Anr. 2000 LLR 168 (Punjab & Haryana HC); (ix) Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Rajpal (2006) LLR 1179 (Delhi High Court); (x) Tej Pal Vs. Gopal Narain & Anr. 2006 LLR 1142 (Delhi High Court); (xi) General Marketing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors. 2000 LLR 793 (Delhi High Court);
(xii) Syndicate Bank Vs. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr. 2000 LLR 689 (SC); (xiii) Management of Erinkadu Estate, Karumbalam, Nilgiris District Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Coimbatore & Ors. 2001 LLR 299 (Madras High Court); (xiv) U.P. Singh Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2001 LLR 708 (Delhi High Court Division Bench); (xv) Management of M/s. Hotel Samrat Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors. 2007 LLR 386; (xvi) M/s. Capital Ltd. Vs. Eighth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors. (2007) LLR 191 (Calcutta HC); (xvii) Tamil Nadu National Mine Workers Union and Anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. and Anr. 2004 LLR 435 (Madras HC); (xviii) L. K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr. 2006 (108) FLR 1101; (ix) Kishan Lal & Sons Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2007 LLR 976 (Delhi HC) and (xx) U.P. State Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Udai Narain Pandey 2006 LLR 214 (SC). Case laws perused with utmost regards.
Page 9 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04
11. My ISSUEWISE findings are as under:
ISSUE No. 1:
Whether fair and proper enquiry has not been held? OPM
This issue has already been decided vide order dated 13.11.2002. ISSUE No. 2:
Whether the services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably. Workman in the statementofclaim has pleaded that management was violating the law absolutely / openly and on demand of workman for legal facilities management got annoyed and terminated the services of workman on 23.04.1992. Further, workman has pleaded that workman alongwith other coworkmen had sent a demand notice dated 16.03.1991 demanding legal facilities; on account of which management got annoyed and started to plan to remove the workman from services and lastly, by creating a drama, on 22.04.1992 management gave an order, Ex.WW1/M1, to workman to the effect that workman has been transferred to Kashipur, UP unit despite the fact that at the time of joining the services with management, management did not put any such condition that workman may have to go outside Delhi for service. As per workman, his transfer to Kashipur was an excuse only for illegally removing the workman from services.
Workman made similar pleadings in the statementofclaim filed before the Conciliation Officer.
On the other hand case as pleaded by management is that orders were issued / given to workman due to exigency of work transferring him to Kashipur (UP) factory of management on 22.04.1992 and workman was to report there by 30.04.1992. Management in the reply filed before Conciliation Officer took the stand that services of workman were not terminated and workman was simply transferred to Kashipur, UP vide Page 10 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04 letter dated 22.04.1992. Management further pleaded in the reply that workman can still join the services at Kashipur as his services are still in continuance. It is in this background, abovesaid reference has been made to the Court. The "Reference" is as regards the illegality and / or unjustifiability of termination of services of workman by the management and stand of the management before the Conciliation Officer was that services of workman were not terminated and he was simply transferred to Kashipur (U. P.) and workman could still join at Kashipur (U. P.). As per management, as pleaded before this Court, in fact, services of workman were terminated by way of his dismissal w.e.f. 28.09.1995 after conducting enquiry into the chargesheet, Ex.WW1/M6, (dated 07.09.1994). Date of reference order is 30.08.1996 but, as the facts suggest, pleadings regarding the enquiry on the chargesheet, Ex.WW1/M6, (dated 07.09.1994) and consequent dismissal of workman w.e.f. 28.09.1995 were not there before the Conciliation Officer. Workman even in the statementofclaim filed before the Court, obviously after 30.08.1996, did not make necessary pleadings about the enquiry on the chargesheet and workman's consequent dismissal from the services of management. Workman WW1 Mr. Sushil Kumar in his cross - examination deposed that, "....... Ex.WW1/M6 is the copy of chargesheet received by me from the management and Ex.WW1/M7 is the reply given by me to the said chargesheet. Ex.WW1/M8 is the copy of the letter of the management informing me about appointment of the enquiry officer.......". Workman even replied the show cause notice dated 22.04.1995 regarding proposed punishment of dismissal from service vide reply dated 22.05.1995. Still workman in the statementofclaim filed before the Court maintained absolute silence about the enquiry proceedings and claim of workman is that his services were terminated on 23.04.1992 with effect from which date workman was transferred to Page 11 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04 Kashipur vide transfer order dated 22.04.1992 Ex.WW1/M1.
It is a settled proposition of law that this Court as a Labour Court must confine its adjudication to dispute referred to it and matters incidental thereto and Labour Court is not free to enlarge the scope of dispute. In view of pleadings, particularly of the workman, before the Conciliation Officer and consequent reference made to the Court for adjudication, the issue as regards the illegality / unjustifiability of the order of transfer of workman to Kashipur unit can be said to be incidental to main / specific terms of reference in as much as workman is pleading that his services in fact have been terminated vide this transfer order, or alternately, that workman has been transferred, in fact, to terminate his services. Without commenting on the transfer, in the facts and circumstances of this case, reference cannot be answered. Thus, such an issue is incidental to the reference. Also, it has been observed in the case law reported as The Jaipur Udyog Ltd. V/s. The Cement Works Karamchari Sangh, Sahu Nagar, AIR 1972 SC 1352 that scope of reference has to be gathered from the circumstances preceding the Government Order.
NOW, this Court has to see whether management had the power to transfer the workman to Kashipur unit. Before an employee / workman can be transferred, there has to be an express condition of employment contract conferring on the employer the right to transfer such employee / workman. [Management of Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. V/s Jasod Singh 2013 LLR 118 relied].
To prove that management was having the power to transfer the workman, management is relying upon Certified Standing Orders Ex.MW2/1 and Ex.MW2/2. Clause 5 (m) of the Certified Standing Orders of the management reads as follows: "(m) TRANSFERS: A workman may be transferred according to exigencies of work from one shop/department to another or from one Page 12 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04 station to another or from one establishment to another or to any sister concern, however, wages, grade continuity of service and other conditions of service of the workman shall be not adversely affected by such transfer. Provided where the transfer involves moving from one state to another the workman shall be given a period of at least one week to join the transferred station and shall be paid travelling allowance including the transport charges and fifty per cent thereof to meet the incidental charges."
These Standing Orders dated 19.07.1989 came into force after the appointment of workman in the year 1983 but as per case law reported as Agra Electric Supply Co. V/s Alladin (supra) relied upon by ld. counsel for management the Standing Orders as they emerge after certification are intended to be binding on all workmen in the employment of the establishment at the date when they came into force and those employed thereafter. The certified standing orders when come into force will be binding to the existing as well as those employees who are appointed subsequently. (Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. Co. V/s Addl. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court (1990) 76 FJR 139 (AP) relied). Thus, in terms of the provisions of certified Standing Orders of the management, management has the authority to transfer the workman to any station outside Delhi. As per case law General Marketing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s Presiding Officer & Ors. (supra) relied upon by ld. counsel for management as workman could be transferred to any state outside Delhi, management has the right to transfer the workman to a new concern started by it subsequent to the date of appointment of the workman.
NOW it is for the workman to establish on record that he was transferred to Kashipur malafidely or by extraneous considerations. Workman is trying to do this by pleading that management was violating the law and on demand being raised by workman regarding legal facilities, management got annoyed and terminated her services Page 13 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04 on 23.04.1992. In this regard workman is also referring to demand notice dated 16.03.1991 allegedly sent by workman alongwith coworkmen to the management. Above stand of the workman has remained totally unsubstantiated. The above averments are vague. The alleged demand notice dated 16.03.1991 has not even been brought on record. Workman has not even pleaded as to which provisions of law were being violated by management and for which legal facilities workman had raised the demand. No coworker has been examined by workman to prove / establish above stand on judicial file. In the absence of adequate evidence in support of abovesaid stand / averments of workman, it is not possible to attribute malafides / extraneous considerations on the part of management in transferring the workman to Kashipur. Further, there is no crossexamination of MW2 Sh. Raghunath Singh on the point of malafides / extraneous considerations, while transferring the workman to Kashipur. Malafides / extraneous consideration while transferring a workman when management as power to transfer a workman, are not to be assumed / presumed but such malafides / extraneous considerations have to be pleaded and proved by workman on judicial file. Workman in this case has failed to do so.
In view of above detailed discussion, it is observed that services of the workman were not terminated by management in terms of workman's pleadings contained in the statementofclaim filed before this Court or before the Conciliation Officer but workman was lawfully transferred only to Kashipur vide transfer letter / order, Ex.WW1/M1, dated 22.04.1992. It is pertinent to note that workman Sushil Kumar in his cross examination deposed that, "..... It is correct that I did not go to the Kashipur (U.P.) Unit of the management where I was ordered to be transferred through letter Ex.WW1/M1 vol. there was no terms and condition for transferring me out of Page 14 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Sushil Kumar Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1244/04 Delhi.........". Management in reply, Ex.WW1/M5 submitted before the Conciliation Officer to the statementofclaim Ex.WW1/M4 filed by workman before the Conciliation Officer, pleaded that workman's services with the management are still continuing and workman could join the duties with management at Kashipur. Still workman did not join at Kashipur. When admittedly workman did not join / report at transferred place, workman can be taken to have abandoned his services. In view of above reply of the management dated 12.07.1994 during the conciliation proceedings letter of management dated 29.06.1992 deeming the workman to have abandoned his services can be taken to have been withdrawn. Issue is decided accordingly. Relief In view of my findings / observations on issue no.2, workman is held to be entitled to no relief.
12. Reference stands answered accordingly.
13. Parties to bear their own costs.
14. In view of my above findings amount of Rs.1,10,000/ deposited by the management herein lying in the FDR as per para. no. 11 of the order dated 18.02.2013 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is liable to be returned to the management.
15. A copy of the award be sent to the concerned Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner for further necessary action. File be consigned to Record Room after completing due formalities.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03.2014
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLCXI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 15 to 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI