Delhi District Court
Case Workmen Of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing ... vs . on 3 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
& SESSIONS JUDGE / PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
ID NO. 79/10 (New) 1080/98(Old)
Date of Institution : 15.09.1998
Date of Arguments : 21.01.2011
Date of Award : 03.02.2011
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
M/s Babu Lal Rajendar Kumar
252, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-III, New Delhi-20
The management
AND
Shri Ram Dhan Sharma & 3 Others
C/o Delhi State Kamgar Union,
Balmukund Khand, Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-19
The workmen
AWARD
The Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi vide its
order No.F.24(4027)/98/Lab./31946-50 dated 10.09.1998 referred
an industrial dispute between the above mentioned parties to
the Labour Court with the following terms of reference:
"Whether the services of S/Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma,
Vijender Sharma, Raj Narayan and Ram Naresh Maurya
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled and
ID No.79/10 1 of 19
what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. In their common statement of claim, it has been pleaded
that Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma joined the management as Helper in
the month of August 1992 and his last drawn salary was Rs.
1937/- per month. The workman Sh. Vijender Sharma joined the
management as an Operator in the month of February, 1996 and
his last drawn salary was Rs.1937/- per month. The workman Sh.
Raj Narayan joined the management as Helper in the month of
May 1992 and his last drawn salary was Rs.1500/- per month.
The workman Sh. Ram Naresh Maurya joined the management as
Helper in the month of July 1990 and his last drawn salary was
Rs.1937/- per month. The management was not implementing
the labour laws like minimum wages, ESI, P.F., Bonus, and it was
not issuing appointment letter, identity card, etc. Therefore, the
workman alongwith other employees of the management were
collectively struggling for implementation of labour laws and
they also succeeded in implementation of minimum wages Act.
As a result thereof, the management was annoyed and
terminated their services on 04.07.1998. They sent a demand
notice dated 04.07.1998 to the management for their
reinstatement in service but no fruitful result came out. The
Labour Inspector visited the establishment of the management
on 06.07.1998 alongwith workmen but the management refused
to reinstate them in service. The management also refused to
pay their earned wages. The termination of their services
without following the procedure provided U/s 2 (oo), 25 F, G and
H of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, here in after referred to as
ID No.79/10 2 of 19
the Act amounts to an illegal retrenchment. The management
also failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice before
terminating their services as the management neither issued any
charge sheet to them nor conducted any inquiry against them.
They have been without employment since the date of illegal
termination of their services. The workman prayed for passing an
award for their reinstatement in service with full back wages.
3. The management contested their case on the grounds
inter-alia that there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the parties. The management denied all
other material allegations and prayed for dismissal of statement
of claim.
4. The workmen in their rejoinder controverted the
contentions made in the WS and reiterated the averments made
in the statement of claim.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:
1. Whether there was relationship of employer and
employee between the parties?
2. Whether services of the workmen were terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably?
3. Relief.
6. In support of their case, workman Sh. Ram Naresh Maurya
examined himself as WW1. He filed and proved his affidavit as
ID No.79/10 3 of 19
Ex. WW1/A and relied on documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/6
and Ex. WW1/1A and WW1/6A to 6F. The workman Sh. Vijender
Sharma examined himself as WW2. He also filed and proved his
affidavit as Ex. WW2/A and relied on documents Ex. WW2/1 to
Ex. WW2/6 and Ex. WW1/1A. The workman Sh. Ram Dhan
Sharma examined himself as WW3. He filed and proved his
affidavit as Ex. WW3/A and relied on documents Ex. WW3/1 to
Ex. WW3/3. The workman Sh. Raj Narayan has failed to examine
himself.
In order to prove its case, the management examined Shri
Shailender Gupta, Partner of the management as MW1. He filed
and proved his affidavit as Ex. MW1/A and proved documents Ex.
MW1/1.
7. After closing of evidence of the parties, I have heard final
arguments of Authorized Representative/Counsel for both the
parties and perused file including written arguments.
8. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, analysing the
evidence and material placed on record and considering
arguments addressed by Authorized Representative/Counsel for
the parties, I have formed my opinion on the issues and that are
discussed here in below issue-wise:
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.1
9. It has been argued on behalf of the management that
workmen were never employed in the management. The
workmen have failed to produce any document regarding their
ID No.79/10 4 of 19
employment in the management. The management relied on a
case Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Lt. vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2004 LLR 351. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that:
"33. Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a
contract is a contract of service or contract for service and
whether the concerned employees are employees of the
contractors has never been an easy task. No decision of this
Court has laid down any hard and fast rule nor it is possible to
do so. The question in each case has to be answered having
regard to the fact involved therein. No single test be it control
test be it organization or any other test has been held to be the
determinative factor for determining the Jural relationship of
employer and employee.
34. There are cases arising on the borderline between what is
clearly an employer employee relation and what is clearly the
independent entrepreneurial dealing."
10. It has been argued that workmen had to prove that they
were under the employment of management for the period of
more than 240 days in a calendar year but they have failed to
prove the same. Counsel for the management further relied on a
case Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (3) SCC
25, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the
question of proof of employment observed as under:-
"2. In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour
Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days and his
service had been terminated without paying him any
retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not
accept this and contended that the respondent had not worked
for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10.8.1998
came to the conclusion that the service had been terminated
without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the
conclusion that the respondent had worked for 240 days the
Tribunal stated that the burden was on the management to
show that there was justification in termination of the service
and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove
ID No.79/10 5 of 19
that he had worked for 240 days in a year.***
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."
11. Counsel for the management further relied on cases
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Sriniwas, 2004 (103)
FLR, 187 (SC). It was held by the Apex Court that:
"For the said purpose it is necessary to notice the definition of
'Continuous Service' as contained in Section 25-B of the Act. In
terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 25-B that if a workman
during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually
worked under the employer 240 days within a period of one
year, he will be deemed to be in continuous service. By reason
of the said provision, thus, a legal fiction is created. The
retrenchment of the respondent took place on 17.05.1995. For
the purpose of calculating as to whether he had worked for a
period of 240 days within one year or not, it was, therefore,
necessary for the Tribunal to arrive at a finding of fact that
during the period between 5.8.1994 to 16.5.1995 he had
worked for a period of more than 240 days. As noticed
hereinbefore, the burden of proof was on the workman."
12. He further relied on a case M. P. Electricity Board vs.
Hariram, 2004 (103) FLR 420 (SC). It was held by the Supreme
Court that burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he
had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year
ID No.79/10 6 of 19
prior to his alleged retrenchment and for the workman to adduce
an evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of
his being in employment of the employer.
13. My attention goes to a case R.M.Yellatti vs. Assistant
Executive Engineer, 2006 (108) FLR 213 SCC. It was held by
Apex Court that:
"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 Disputes Act.
However, applying general principles and on reading the
aforestated 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 workman stepping in the
witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman
adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases
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
workman(claimant) can only call upon the employer to
produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the
given period, the letter of appointment or 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
statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in
the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the
workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given
year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non-
production of muster rolls per se without any plea of
suppression by the claimant workman 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."
[Emphasis added]
ID No.79/10 7 of 19
14. As per principles of law laid down in above mentioned
cases, particularly the case of R.M.Yellatti vs. Assistant
Executive Engineer (supra), the initial burden to prove was on
the workman that there was relationship of employer and
employees between the parties. Thereafter the burden to prove
that there was no relationship of employer and employee
between the parties, was on the management as the
management specifically pleaded that fact.
15. On analyzing the evidence on record, I came to the
conclusion that the evidence and material placed on record has
established that there was relationship of employer and
employees between the parties. The reasons which support my
decision, are firstly, that MW1 in his cross examination admitted
that quarrels took place various times in the factory in the year
1998 and the management had lodged complaints with the
police with regard to the same. The management lodged police
complaint against Sh. Jaidev, Sh. Niranjan, Sh. Ram Naresh Morya
and Sh. Jai Ram Shah as they were demonstrating in front of the
factory of the management. He also admitted that copy of the
charge sheet of that incident was Ex.WW1/M-1. He expressed his
ignorance if the workman Sh. Niranjan filed a complaint against
Sh. Nagender Gupta and Kshitij Gupta and on the basis of that
complaint, a case was registered and same was pending in
Patiala House Courts. He also admitted that Sh. Nagender Gupta
was one of the partners of the management. He expressed his
ignorance whether Sh. Nagender Gupta used to go to Patiala
House Courts to attend said case. On perusal of Ex.WW1/M-1, I
ID No.79/10 8 of 19
find that it is a copy of charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Sh. Nagender
Gupta is the complainant in that charge sheet and Sh. Jaidev, Sh.
Niranjan, Sh. Ram Naresh Morya and Sh. Jai Ram Shah were the
accused. It has been mentioned therein that all these workers
were demonstrating in front of the factory. They entered into the
factory, beat the complainant Sh. Nagender Gupta and Sh. Kshitij
Gupta. Although in his cross examination, MW1 stated that those
persons were not the employees of the management yet, it could
not be explained satisfactorily as to why Sh. Nagender Gupta
addressed them before the police as workers. In that complaint,
it was clear that these persons were employees/workers of the
management. This has established relationship of employer and
employee between the management and the workman Sh. Ram
Naresh Morya.
16. Secondly, workmen placed many letters which were
received by Sh. Vijender Sharma, Ram Naresh Morya, Sh. Ram
Dhan at the premises of the management. These documents
further supported claim of the workmen that they received these
documents at the premises of the management.
17. Counsel for the management relied on a case reported as
Suresh Bhati and ors. vs. Kapil Industries and ors., WP(C)
No. 11634-46/2006 and argued that these documents cannot be
considered for deciding the relationship of employer and
employees between the parties. It was held by Delhi High Court
that:
"The onus to prove the relationship is squarely on the employee
ID No.79/10 9 of 19
or the workman who comes to the Labour Court to claim a relief
under the Industrial Disputes Act and non production of
document like muster roll cannot lead to a finding in favour of
workman."
18. I am of the view that if these documents are not supported
by any other evidence, then these documents itself will not
prove the employer-employee relationship but certainly these
documents can corroborate and support the case of workmen in
proving relationship. In the present case, these documents have
strengthened the case of Sh. Ram Naresh Morya.
19. Thirdly, WW1 to WW4 in their statements proved not only
copy of demand notice dated 17.07.1998 sent to the
management as Ex.WW1/1, copy of complaint dated 17.07.1998
to the Police Post Incharge, Okhla Industrial Area as Ex.WW1/1A,
copy of labour Inspector's report dated 20.07.1998 as Ex.WW1/3,
copy of complaint dated 06.07.1998 addressed to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner Ex.WW1/4 but also proved on record copy
of complaint dated 22.07.1998 addressed to Factory Inspector as
Ex.WW1/5. The Labour Inspector's report contains the names of
workmen Sh. Vijender Sharma, Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Sh. Ram
Naresh Morya and Sh. Raj Narain. It has been mentioned therein
that he made efforts but the management failed to reinstate
them in services or pay back wages. MW1 in his cross
examination expressed his ignorance and deposed that he could
not see if any labour inspector visited the management on
06.07.1998 to get the workmen reinstated. This has further
supported the case of the workmen that they had been working
with the management. He also expressed his ignorance that
ID No.79/10 10 of 19
during general checking which took place on 22.06.1998, Sh.
Ram Dhan, Sh. Ram Naresh and Sh. Vijender Sharma were found
working in the establishment of the management.
20. Fourthly, MW1 in his cross examination, admitted that in
the year 1998, three units were working in the premises No.252,
Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. He also deposed that he was
under the impression that the workmen were the employees of
another establishment who were being run by his cousin. He
expressed his ignorance about the details of the workers who
were working with M/s Sparton Sales Corporation and M/s Mit
Sumi India Private Limited.
21. It has been argued on behalf of the workmen that there
was functional integrality between all the three establishments
as they were being run by the family members. Their telephone
numbers, office address and fax numbers were the same. MW1
admitted that all the three factories were being run in the same
premises. MW1 also admitted in his cross examination that one
of the other companies was being run by his cousin.
22. My attention goes to a case Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.
v. Regional Provident Fund Comm., (Rajasthan)(DB)(Jaipur
Bench), 2008(4) S.C.T. 255 : 2008 L.I.C. 2434 : 2008(3) L.L.J.
782. The Rajasthan High Court observed as under:
"15. The Supreme Court in A.C.C. v. Their Workmen,
1960(1) LLJ 1 : (AIR 1960 SC 56) was called upon to decide
whether the cement factory and a lime stone quarry situated at
ID No.79/10 11 of 19
two different places could be treated as one establishment. The
lime stone quarry was situated at a distance of one and half
miles from the cement factory. It was held that there was unity
of purpose and functional integrity between quarry and the
factory. The Supreme Court held that the tests which could be
applied to decide as to what constitutes one establishment
would be unity of ownership, unity of management, supervision
and control, unity of finance and employment, unity of labour
and service conditions, functional integrity , general unity of
purpose and geographical proximity.
16. In South India Mill Owners' Association v. Coimbatore
District Textile Workers Union, AIR 1962 SC 1221, the
Supreme Court again held that several factors are relevant in
dealing with such problem. However, significance of several
relevant factors would not be the same in each case. Unity of
ownership, management and control would be a relevant factor.
General unity or functional may also be relevant factor. Unity of
finance may not be an irrelevant factor. Geographical proximity
may also be of some relevance. In some cases, the test would
be whether one concern forms integral part of another so that
together they constitute one concern. Their Lordships held that
the nexus of integration in the form of some essential
dependence of the one on the other may assume relevance.
Similarly , unity of purpose or design or even parallel or co-
ordinate activity intended to achieve a common object for the
purpose of carrying out the business of the one or the other may
also assume relevance and importance.
17. The Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Jaipur v. Naraini Udyog and others,
(1996)5 SCC 522 while reversing the judgment passed by this
Court and restoring the order passed by the Commissioner in
somewhat identical circumstances made similar observations. In
that case, the Commissioner found that units had a common
branch at Bombay and common telephone at Kota for residence
and factory. Office of one unit was situated in the premises of
the other and accounts of both the units were maintained by the
same set of clerks. In those facts, the Commissioner held that
both of them constituted one establishment. It was held by the
Supreme Court that even if they were separately registered
under Factories Act, the Sales Tax Act, the ESIC Act and are
located at a distance of 3 Kms., in totality of circumstances,
they would still be liable to be treated as same establishment.
18. In M/s. Rajasthan Prem Krishan Goods Transport Co. (1997
Lab IC 146), supra, the Supreme Court on analysis of the
findings recorded by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
ID No.79/10 12 of 19
held that there was unity of purpose of the two units therein on
each count in as much as the place of business is common, the
management is common and the letter heads bear same
telephone numbers and 10 out of 13 partners of the appellant
firm are common and further that the trucks plied by the two
entities are owned by the partners and are being hired through
both the units. It was further found that respective employees
engaged by two entities when added together bring the
integrated entities within the grip of Act. On facts it was held
that a legitimate inference can be drawn that they were one
unit. It was held that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
could "pierce the veil and read between the lines without the
outwardliness of the two apparents."
19. When we apply the law as consistently laid down by the
Supreme Court in the judgements referred to above, we find
that there are some such factors in the case in hand, on the
basis of which the legitimate inference could be drawn by the
Commissioner that the three companies referred to above have
functional integrity and unity of purpose. Mere separate
incorporation and registration of these companies under the
Indian Companies Act and under very many other enactments,
could not make them different units. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, in our view, was well within his rights to
pierce the veil and read between the lines without the
outwardliness of the two apparents. He had ample to arrive at
such a satisfaction in the scope of Section 2A read with Section
7A of the Act while deciding the claim of infancy made by the
appellants."
23. The principles of law laid down in this case also support the
case of the workmen as proximity of all the three establishments
referred to herein above, and their control by close relative, their
common facilities such as telephone number, lead to the
presumption that there was functional integrality of all the
above mentioned three establishments including the
management.
24. Fifthly, although the management filed and proved
ID No.79/10 13 of 19
photostat copies of record of register, employment and
remuneration collectively as Ex.MW1/1, yet the management has
failed to file and prove record of all the three concerns working
at the said premises in spite of the fact that there was functional
integrality of all these three concerns and these concerns were
being run by family members of the management. This leads to
the presumption under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act to the
effect that entire record was not produced as it was favourable
to the workmen.
25. Lastly, the workmen Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Vijender
Sharma and Sh. Ram Naresh Morya examined themselves in
support of their case as WW1, WW2 and WW3, respectively.
WW1 in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, interalia stated that he had been
working with the management since July, 1990 on the post of
Helper and the management terminated his services on
04.07.1998. WW2, in his affidavit Ex.WW2/A deposed that he had
been working with the management since February, 1994 on the
post of Operator and the management terminated his services
on 04.07.1998 and WW3 in his affidavit Ex.WW3/A stated that he
had been working with the management since August, 1992 and
his last drawn salary was Rs.1937/- and the management
terminated his services on 04.07.1998. In their cross
examinations nothing could come out which could establish that
they were not the employees of the management.
In view of the reasons, discussion and evidence on record
and particularly discussed here in above, this issue is decided in
favour of the workmen Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Ram Naresh
ID No.79/10 14 of 19
Morya and Sh. Vijender Sharma and against the management.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.2
26. It has been established under the findings of issue No. 1
that the workmen Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Sh. Vijender Sharma
and Sh. Ram Naresh Morya were in the employment of the
management. WW1 in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A told the period of
his service from July, 1999 to 04.08.1998. WW2 in his affidavit
Ex.WW2/A stated the length of his service with the management
from February 1996 to 04.07.1998. WW3 in his affidavit
Ex.WW3/A, mentioned the tenure of his employment with the
management from August, 1992 to 04.07.1998. Their testimonies
were found credible and trustworthy. This has established that
the workmen Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Sh. Ram Naresh Morya and
Sh. Vijender Sharma had been in continuous service of the
management for a period of more than 240 days preceding the
date of termination of their services by the management. It is not
the case of the management that the management either
assigned any reason to them or issued any notice or offered or
paid notice pay or retrenchment compensation. It is also not the
case of the management that the management either served
any show cause notice or charge sheet on the workmen or got
conducted any enquiry against any of them. This has established
that there was violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the Act in
termination of services of the workmen by the management.
27. All the three WWs in their respective affidavits also stated
that the management violated the provisions of Section 25 G and
ID No.79/10 15 of 19
H of the Act. A perusal of cross examination of WW1, WW2 and
WW3 has established that none of the three workmen were cross
examined on the point of preparation of seniority list or
observance/adherence of the principle, "Last come first go".
Affidavit of MW1 is also silent on this aspect. This has further
established that there was violation of provisions of Section 25 G
and 25 H of the Act as neither the management prepared nor it
maintained the seniority list nor it was observing the principle of
"Last come first go".
In view of the reasons, discussion and evidence on record
and particularly discussed here in above, this issue is decided in
favour of the workmen Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Ram Naresh
Morya and Sh. Vijender Sharma and against the management
and it is held that the management terminated their services
illegally and unjustifiably.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 3: RELIEF
28. In case of Kishan Swaroop Vs. Project and Equipment
Corporation of India Ltd.,MANU/DE/3010/2007 it was held by
Delhi High Court that in each and every case of illegal and
unjustified termination of services, the relief of reinstatement
and full back wages is not to be granted automatically and the
Labour Court can mould the relief by granting lump sum
compensation in lieu thereof.
29. In case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar
Rai,(2005) 5 SCC 124, it was held that:
ID No.79/10 16 of 19
"6. A law in absolute terms cannot be laid down as to in
which cases, and under what circumstances, full back wages
can be granted or denied. The Labour Court and/or Industrial
Tribunal before which industrial dispute has been raised,
would be entitled to grant the relief having regard to the
facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose,
several factors are required to be taken into consideration".
30. In case of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees
(1979) 2 SCC 80 a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court laid down:
"11. In the very nature of things there cannot be a
straitjacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All
relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it
would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the
Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the
party objecting to it must establish the circumstances
necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will
exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant
circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a
judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising
discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear
on the face of the record. When it is said that something is
to be done within the discretion of the authority, that
something is to be done according to the rules of reason and
justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be
arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular***"
31. WW1 in his cross examination stated that he could not
get the job elsewhere despite making efforts to search job. He
worked casually and he earned about Rs.600/- per month. WW2
deposed that he could not get the job elsewhere despite his best
efforts. However, he casually got the job on daily wage basis and
earned about Rs.500/- per month. WW3 also deposed on the
same lines and mentioned his average monthly income as Rs.
500/- to 700/-. In these circumstances, and keeping in view the
ID No.79/10 17 of 19
facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view
that instead of backwages, it would be just and proper to award
them some reasonable lump sum compensation.
ORDER
32. Consequent upon the decision of both the issues in favour of the workmen Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Vijender Sharma and Sh. Ram Naresh Morya and against the management, terms of reference are answered in favour of these three workmen and against the management and it is held that termination of services of these three workmen was illegal and unjustified and therefore, they are entitled to get relief.
33. As these three workmen have suffered legal injury due to illegal action of the management and they cannot be put to their original posts, therefore, considering all the relevant factors including pay, length of service of the workmen and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be just, fair and appropriate if a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) is awarded in favour of workman Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) is awarded in favour of workman Sh. Vijender Sharma, and Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousands Only) is awarded in favour of workman Sh. Ram Naresh Morya and against the management.
34. The appropriate Government is advised to direct the ID No.79/10 18 of 19 management to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) to workman Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) to Sh. Vijender Sharma and Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousands Only) to Sh. Ram Naresh Morya within 30 days from the date of publication of this award failing which, they will also be entitled to get the future interest @ 8% from the date of award till the realization of the said amount.
It is further held that since workman Sh. Raj Narain has failed to adduce any evidence and examine himself in support of his case, therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief.
Award is, accordingly passed.
35. Copy of award be sent to the Secretary Labour, Govt. of NCT, Delhi for publication as per rules.
36. Copy of award be also sent to Ld. Senior Civil Judge, District South Delhi in compliance of provisions of Sec. 11(10) of the Act as amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010), which runs as under:-
"(10) The Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall transmit any award, order or settlement to a Civil Court having jurisdiction and such Civil Court shall execute the award, order or settlement as if it were a decree passed by it."
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 3rd February, 2011.
(DR. T. R. NAVAL)
Additional District & Sessions Judge
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
ID No.79/10 19 of 19