Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Smt. Beena @ Veena Rathore D/O Sh. B.C. ... vs Business Manager on 30 April, 2011

          IN THE COURT OF  SH. CHANDRA GUPTA
           PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT­X
                  KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.

I.D. No. : 347/09
Date of Institution of the case : 29.07.2008
Date on which reserved for Award : 20.04.2011 
Date on which Award is passed : 30.04.2011


Unique ID No.  02402C0558462008
Smt. Beena @ Veena Rathore D/o Sh. B.C. Rathore,
R/o H.No. 420, Gali no.8,
West Kanti Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
                                        .................Workman
Versus
Business Manager,
Shikha Marketing Company,
Omicare a Division of Cipla Ltd.,
Address: A­37, IInd Floor,
Cipla House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
                                              .................Management


                         AWARD

            The workman Smt. Beena Rathore, raised an industrial dispute

regarding the termination of her services by the management of M/s

M/s Shikha Marketing Company. Direct statement of claim was filed


I.D. No. 347/09                                           Page 1 out of 5
 by the workman in the court.  In the statement of claim, it is stated by

the   workman   that   the   workman   was   working   as   Sales

Executive/Medical   since   08.06.2006   on   a   last   drawn   salary   of

Rs.5,000/­ per month excluding other charges and allowance; that the

management assured the workman for four leaves per month and that

medical and overtime will be provided to her; that since April 2008

the   management   no.1   stopped   the   salary   of   the   workman   without

giving   any   notice   or   reason  and  told   her  that   her  services   are  not

required in future; that the management forcefully got signatures of

the   workman   on   some   blank   papers   and   business   manager   also

threatened   to   the   workman   not   to   complain   anywhere;   that   the

workman  is  unemployed  since the date of  her termination;  that  on

09.07.2008   a   demand   notice   was   sent   to   the   management   through

registered post but the management did not give any reply; that the

termination   of   the   services   of   the   workman   is   in   violation   of   the

provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D Act, 1947.  Hence, the workman

has   claimed   for   reinstatement   with   full   back   wages,   continuity   of

service and all  her dues.  

                       Notice of the filing of statement of claim was sent to the

management.   The   management   appeared   and   filed   the   written


I.D. No. 347/09                                                    Page 2 out of 5
 statement  and  contested  the claim  of  the workman.   In the written

statement   filed   by   the   management   it   has   taken   the   preliminary

objections that the services of the workman were purely contractual

which came into existence on August 1, 2007 and was snapped on

27th    June 2008; that the workman had resigned from the services of

M/s   Nova   Mark   vide   her   resignation   letter   dated   31.07.2007.   On

merits   it   is   denied   that   the   workman   joined   the   management   on

08.06.2006   on  the   post  of  Sales  Executive/Medical  Representative;

that the management had a contract with the workman on 1st August

2007   and   on   27.06.2008   her   contract   with   the   management   was

snapped; that the workman was paid salary for the months of April

and May 2008; that on 25.07.2008 a demand notice was received by

the management which was replied on 29.07.2008; that the  action of

the management is covered under sub clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the I.D Act, 1947.  Hence, it is prayed that the claim be dismissed. 

            In Rejoinder, all the averments of statement of claim are

reaffirmed and of the written statement are denied by the workman.

            On   the   pleadings   of   the   parties   vide   order   dated

04.12.2008, the following issues were framed: 

           1.

Whether the services of workman were terminated I.D. No. 347/09 Page 3 out of 5 illegally or justifiably by the management, if so, its effect?

No other issue arose or pressed and the case was adjourned for workman evidence.

In support of her case, workman herself appeared as WW1, filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A. In her affidavit, she has reiterated all the averments of her statement of claim. She has relied upon the documents Mark A and B. However, during the pendency of the case for management evidence, the workman has settled all her disputes with the management in respect of her reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits, if any, etc. in payment of an amount of Rs. 45,000/­ (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) on the part of the management to the workman in this regard, vide settlement dated 16.02.2011 arrived at between the workman and the management in this regard, Ex.C1, which amount has been received by the workman from the management in cash, receipts in respect of the amounts totaling the settled amount are Exts. C2 and C3 and receipt of which amount the workman has acknowledged. Now the workman is left with no claim whatsoever against the management.

I.D. No. 347/09 Page 4 out of 5 Statements of the parties to the said effect have been recorded separately, on record.

As discussed above, as the matter has been settled between the parties, the workman is not entitled to any other claim.

The Award is passed in terms of settlement. The Ahlmad is directed to send six copies of this award to the appropriate Government. The file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open court on 30.04.2011 (CHANDRA GUPTA) Presiding Officer Labour Court­X Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

I.D. No. 347/09                                                   Page 5 out of 5