Delhi District Court
Between The vs The on 26 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. RENU BHATNAGAR, PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0000751999
ID No. 60/99
LIR 278/16
Date of institution 07.01.1999
Date of Award 26.07.2016
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Pankaj Kumar,
C/o Delhi Mazdoor Manch, 52C,
Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi.
AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
89 Hemkun Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
M/s Sentinel Security, 1006, Sector7 C, Faridabad.
AWARD
1.By this award I shall dispose off the reference as sent by the Office of the Secretary (Labour) : 15 Rajpur Raod, Delhi,, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi, arising out between the parties named above to this court vide notification No. F.24 (5569)/98 Lab./43696701 dated 30.12.1998 with the following terms of reference: ID.60/99 & LIR 278/16 Pankaj Kumar VS. M/s Power Grid Corp. M/s Sentinel Security 1/6 "Whether the services of Shri Pankaj Kumar have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Notice was sent to the workman for filing of statement of claim, who appeared and filed the claim.
3. The brief facts as mentioned in the claim are that the workman was appointed on 10.12.1995 as a "Security Guard" for management no. 1 M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi through recruiting agency M/s Sentinal Security i.e. Management no. 2; that the workman was under the control and supervision of management no. 1 since 07.03.1995 to 27.04.1998 on last drawn wages of Rs. 1950/ per month; that the management had illegally terminated him on 27.04.1998 without any notice pay or service compensation, hence the workman has sent demand notices to both the management but of no avail where after he filed an industrial dispute with the Conciliation Officer, Giri Nagar, Kalka Ji, New Delhi19 dated 20.05.1998 but that also failed. It is stated one joint case of the workman for regularization of services is already pending in Hon'ble High Court vide C.M.P. No. 6636/98 in CWP No. 2875/98 for its disposal, hence the workman has claimed reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
4. Notice of filing of claim was sent to the management who appeared and contested the claim of the workman.
5. In the Written Statement filed by management no. 1 they have taken the plea that management no. 1 is under the Central Government and the reference by Government of NCT of Delhi is bad. It is stated that the workman was not an employee ID.60/99 & LIR 278/16 Pankaj Kumar VS. M/s Power Grid Corp. M/s Sentinel Security 2/6 of management no. 1 but he was an employee of management no. 2. It is stated that he never worked under the control and supervision of management no.
6. In the WS filed by management no. 2, it is stated that the workman was appointed by them as a "Security Guard" and was posted at the premises of management no. 1 where management no. 2 was providing security services under contract/ agreement extended vide reference no. is 01/Admn/SSS/98 dated 09.03.1998; that the workman was working under the direction and control of management no. 2 who was paying his wages and providing other facilities and he was covered under ESI and EPF under the management no. 2. It is stated that in fact the services of the workman were transferred to M/s Western Refrigeration on 27.04.1998 but the workman refused to accept and did not join there and he himself abandoned his duties. Hence, it is prayed that the reference may be decided against the workman.
7. In rejoinder to the WS of both the managements the workman has reaffirmed the averments of his claim and denied the averments of the WS.
8. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the then POLC vide order dated 24.07.2001:
1. Whether there exists relationship of workman and management between the claimant Ram Nomi and management no. 1?
2. Whether the claimant is the employee of management no. 2.
3. Whether the services of Shri Ram Nomi has been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management?
4. Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed.
ID.60/99 & LIR 278/16 Pankaj Kumar VS. M/s Power Grid Corp. M/s Sentinel Security 3/6
9. Evidence Of Workman No evidence is led by the workman nor anybody was appearing on his behalf since several years. Accordingly nonproduction of the witnesses and his non appearance since the year 2011 shows that the workman was not interested to proceed with the case, therefore WE was closed vide order dated 09.06.16. Hence, the case fixed for Management Evidence.
10. Evidence Of Management AR for the management no. 1 has made the statement that he does not wish to lead any evidence on behalf of the management no. 1. So far as the management no. 2 is concerned since nobody was appearing from management no. 2, evidence on behalf of the management no. 2 was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments, if any.
11. Conclusion I have heard the submissions of AR for the management no. 1. During the course of proceedings, Ld. AR for the management no. 1 admits the factual position that the previous ID which was decided by Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 09.01.02 was based on the reference ID No. 19/1990 sent by the appropriate Government in respect of regularization of 104 workmen including the present workman, whereas the present reference sent by the appropriate Government relates to the termination of his services. Admittedly, the order of their absorption in management no. 1 passed by the industrial tribunal has been quashed by the superior Courts but the question of their illegal termination by the management is yet to be decided in the present reference which has to be answered by the Court, as in this reference, the claim of the workman is of his reinstatement with back wages. Heard. I have perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under:
ID.60/99 & LIR 278/16 Pankaj Kumar VS. M/s Power Grid Corp. M/s Sentinel Security 4/6
12. Issue No. 1:
As is the settled law that the onus to prove that the relationship between the workman and management no. 1 was upon the workman but since in this case the workman has not led any evidence to prove his relationship, this issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management no. 1.
13. Issue No. 2:
Since the workman has not led any evidence, he has failed to prove his employment with the management no. 2. Though the management no. 2 had admitted the workman to be its employee but the workman in his statement of claim has stated that he was appointed for management no. 1 through the recruiting agency i.e. management no. 2. As the workman had neither appeared in the Court nor had led any evidence, this issue is also decided against the workman.
14. Issue No. 3:
The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman. As already observed that the workman has not led any evidence from his side, he has failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the managements. Hence, this issue is decided against the workman.
15. Issue No. 4:
In view of above discussion on issue no. 1 to 3, workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the claim of the workman is dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
16. A copy of the Award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, ID.60/99 & LIR 278/16 Pankaj Kumar VS. M/s Power Grid Corp. M/s Sentinel Security 5/6 Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT On 26.07.2016 (RENU BHATNAGAR) PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURTIX EAST DISTT./KKD COURTS:DELHI 26.07.2016 ID.60/99 & LIR 278/16 Pankaj Kumar VS. M/s Power Grid Corp. M/s Sentinel Security 6/6