Delhi District Court
Sh. Eid Mohd. Ansari vs M/S Cnb Fashion on 19 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURTXIX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
LIR/D No. 159/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0 537422006
Sh. Eid Mohd. Ansari
S/o Sh. Mustakeem Ansari
Through:
Sh. Avdhesh Singh
796, Pocket No. 1, Paschimpuri
New Delhi 110063 .........WORKMAN
Versus
1.M/s CNB Fashion RZE4, Gali No. 6 Raghu Nagar, Dabri Mor New Delhi 110045
2. Chintu Creation WZ430, Naraina Village New Delhi 110028 .........MANAGEMENTS Date of institution of the case : 22.09.2006 Date for which Award reserved : 12.02.2013 Date of passing the award : 19.02.2013 AWARD :
The present claim has been filed by the workman against the managements claiming that he was earlier appointed by management no. 2 and started working with it w.e.f. 22.05.1997 as 'Tailor' at last drawn wages of Rs.
LIR/D No. 159/2011 1 of 6 3230/ per month and that later he was made to work with management no. 1. It is submitted that he worked very sincerely and honestly. It was further asserted that a claim dated 09.06.2006 regarding demand of his dues such as house rent, increment etc. is pending before the Conciliation Officer. It was submitted that his services were transferred to Gurgaon without his consent and that the bus service was also stopped by the management w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and when the workman demanded for the same in Delhi, he was declined the same and hence the present claim was filed with prayer that the refusal by the management to employ him in Delhi is illegal and that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service with other consequential benefits at interest rate of 18% on earned wages. He claims to be unemployed since 01.09.2006.
2. The management no. 2 appeared and opposed the claim by filing written statement stating that the workman was never in employment with the management no. 2. Other allegations of the claim were denied specifically and categorically. However, no written statement was filed by management no. 1 despite service and it was proceeded against exparte on 07.07.2009.
3. The workman did not file any rejoinder to the written statement of management no. 2 and from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 02.02.2011:
1. Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to relief prayed for?
LIR/D No. 159/2011 2 of 6
4. The workman led his evidence and examined himself as WW1 and closed his evidence. Management also examined Sh. Ashok Dutta as MW1 and closed its evidence.
5. I have heard Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary, Ld. AR for the workman and Sh. Anjani Kumar, Ld. AR for the management no. 2 and have carefully gone through the record. My issue wise findings are as under : ISSUE NO. 1
6. The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman . The workman has impleaded two managements in the present claim and it was incumbent upon him to prove his relationship with both of them. While management No. 1 remained exparte, management No. 2 denied the relationship. The workman could not place on record any document to prove his relationship with management No. 2. His case had been that initially he was appointed with management No. 2 but later on his services were transferred to Management No. 1. No date of such transfer has been mentioned by him either in his claim or in his affidavit. Even in his crossexamination he admitted that he has no document to show that initially he was appointed with management No. 2. He also admitted that the ESI Card Ex.WW1/10 also belongs to Management No.
1. Thus, there is nothing to suggest on record that he was ever employed with management No. 2 or had any relationship with it.
LIR/D No. 159/2011 3 of 6
7. On the other hand, the documents relied upon by the workman particularly ESI Card, belongs to Management No. 1, who has not come forward to rebut the claim of the workman . Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and Management No. 2 and against the Management No. 1 holding that the workman was an employee of Management No. 1. ISSUE NO. 2
8. Once it has been established that the workman was an employee of only Management No. 1, he is not entitled to any relief from Management No.
2. The workman has deposed in his unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony as against Management No. 1 that he was transferred to Gurgaon under protest for which he had preferred a claim before the Conciliation Officer through his Union pending which the management No. 1 withdrew the bus facility from Delhi to Gurgaon and as such forced the employee to leave the job which amounts to illegal termination . The management No. 1 remained exparte and has not challenged the said contention of the workman . There is nothing to disbelieve the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the workman to this effect and the documents filed by him Ex.WW1/1 toWW1/9 only support his contention that he had been vigorously pursuing the matter with the Labour Department. Hence, the act of management No. 1 to refuse duty at Delhi amounts to illegal termination and accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
LIR/D No. 159/2011 4 of 6 RELIEF
9. In view of the above findings, the workman is not entitled to any relief as against Management No. 2 but is entitled to relief as against Management No. 1. He has claimed that he has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination and the management No. 1 has failed to rebut his plea . Admittedly, no notice of termination was issued to the workman nor any valid reason has been disclosed and as such the termination is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. Accordingly, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
Directed accordingly.
The claim of the workman is accordingly answered. A copy of this Award be sent for publication.
Case file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19th Day of February 2013 (SANJAY SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTXIX KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI LIR/D No. 159/2011 5 of 6