Delhi District Court
Labour Court No.Xx Fast Track Kkd. ... vs S.T.Hadimani" Reported As (2002) on 8 April, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT No.XX FAST TRACK KKD. COURTS DELHI
ID 260/2006 (Old No.905/1998)
BETWEEN
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s RANUTROL LTD
F-85, Okhla Phase I,
New Delhi 110 020 ...MANAGEMENT
AND
WORKMAN RAMESH VERMA
c/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
163, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar
Kalkaji, New Delhi 110 019 ...WORKMAN
Date of receipt of reference 1.7.1998
Date of hearing the final arguments 8.4.2008
Date of award 8.4.2008
A W A R D
Workman Ramesh Verma has raised an Industrial dispute
against the management of M/s Ranutrol Ltd, for termination of his
services by the management and on being satisfied with regard to existence
of an Industrial Dispute between the workman & the management the
appropriate Government vide order no. F.24(2472)/98-Lab/20666-70 dated
18.6.1998 referred the Industrial Dispute to the Court with the following
terms of reference:
Whether the services of Sh.Ramesh Verma 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- ID 260/2006
The workman filed his statement of claim stating therein
that he had been working with the management at the post of Helper since
22.3.1996 and his last drawn salary was Rs.1,784/- per month. During the
tenure of his service, the workman did not give any chance of complaint to
the management and there was no allegation against the workman. The
management was not providing the legal facilities, such as, yearly leave,
weekly leave, TA etc. When the workman demanded the aforesaid legal
facilities, the management got annoyed and withheld the earned wages of
the workman from 1.2.1998 to 12.2.1998 and terminated the services of the
workman without any notice, without any charge sheet and without making
any kind of payment with effect from 12.2.1998. Thereby the management
has violated the conditions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. There were more than 100 employees working in the establishment
of the management. The management has violated the provisions of section
25-N Chapter 5-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as the management
has terminated the services of the workman without obtaining permission
from the Govt of NCT of Delhi. The workman through registered AD/UPC
served a demand notice dated 13.2.1998 upon the management demanding
reinstatement with back wages but the management neither replied the
notice nor reinstated the workman with back wages despite service of
notice. The workman through his Union made a complaint to the Assistant
-3- ID 260/2006
Labour Commissioner upon which the Assistant Labour Commissioner
directed the Labour Inspector to get the workman reinstated along with
back wages but the management refused to reinstate the workman and to
pay his back wages despite intervention by the Labour Inspector. The
workman filed his claim before the Conciliation officer but the
management did not appear before the Conciliation officer and the
conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to the Court for
adjudication. The management has employed another person in place of the
workman and the workman is still unemployed as he could not get
alternative job despite his best efforts. The management used to get work
from the workman for 12 hours a day and used to pay only for 8 hours and
did not use to pay overtime. Accordingly it has been prayed that the
management may be directed to reinstate the workman with full back
wages & other legal facilities.
The management contested the claim of the workman and
filed written statement stating therein that the claimant was appointed with
effect from 2.7.1997 on temporary basis and his services were terminated in
accordance with the terms & conditions of his employment with effect
from 12.2.1998 and as such, there is no Industrial Dispute as defined under
Section 2(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The claimant Ramesh
-4- ID 260/2006
Verma had not completed 240 days of service with the management, and as
such, he can not invoke the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It
has been denied that Sh.Ramesh Verma was appointed with effect from
22.3.1996 and it has been submitted that Sh.Ramesh Verma was appointed
on 2.7.1997.It has been further submitted by the management that all the
legal facilities were being provided to the claimant, as such, there is no
question of demanding any legal facility and the management getting
annoyed and terminating his services by withholding his wages from
1.2.1998 to 12.2.1998 without notice or charge sheet. It has been submitted that the provisions of section 25-N & chapter 5-B are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The management has denied the service of demand notice. The management has denied all other averments made by the workman in his statement of claim against the management and has stated that the workman is gainfully employed/self employed. Accordingly it has been prayed that statement of claim may be rejected.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed
1.Whether the workman Sh.Ramesh Verma was appointed on temporary basis?
2.Whether Sh.Ramesh Verma had completed 240 days of service of the management continuously?
3.Whether there is any industrial dispute between the claimant and the management as defined under Section 2(a) of the ID -5- ID 260/2006 Act?
4.Whether the services of Sh.Ramesh Verma have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
5.Relief Workman, in order to prove his case, filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW-1/A and examined himself as WW-1 and relied upon the documents Ex.WW-1/1 to Ex.WW-1/7, and thereafter workman evidence was closed. On the other hand, the management, in order to prove its stand, filed affidavit of Sh.Anil Babbar - Assistant Manager (Accounts) and examined him as MW-1 and thereafter management evidence was closed.
Final arguments heard, file perused. Issue-wise discussion is as under: ISSUE No. 1
MW-1 - Anil Babbar in his affidavit has deposed that Mr.Ramesh Verma was employed by the management with effect from 2.7.1997 on temporary basis. No appointment letter or any other document has been placed on record by the management to show the terms and conditions of the employment of the workman with the management. As such, there is nothing on record to suggest that the workman Ramesh -6- ID 260/2006 Verma was appointed on temporary basis. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
I S S U E No.2 The workman in his affidavit has deposed that he had been working with the management since 22.3.1996 and his services were terminated on 12.2.1998. On the other hand, Sh.Anil Babbar - Assistant Manager (Accounts) of the management in his affidavit Ex.MW-1/A has specifically stated that Sh.Ramesh Verma was employed by the management with effect from 12.7.1997and he has not worked with the management for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his alleged termination i.e. 12.2.1998. Onus to prove that the workman has worked continuously for 240 days in preceding 12 months prior to the date of his termination, is upon the workman, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled "Range Forest Officer Versus S.T.Hadimani" reported as (2002) 3 Supreme Court cases 25. In the present case, the workman has failed to place on record any document to show that he joined the establishment of the management on 22.3.1996 and he has failed to examine any co-worker to prove that he worked with the management with effect from 22.3.1996. Mere averments in the affidavit of the workman Ex.WW-1/A that he had been working with the management since 22.3.1996 is not sufficient -7- ID 260/2006 evidence for the purpose of proving that he has worked with the management for 240 days in the preceding 12 months prior to the date of his termination. Even the workman in his affidavit Ex.WW-1/A in para 5, has specifically deposed that he had an identity card issued by the management, as a proof but the workman has not placed on record any such identity card to prove the date of his appointment. No reason has been given by the workman as to why he withheld the best evidence available with him. Further the workman during his cross-examination has stated that he has got the proof to prove that he was appointed with effect from 22.3.1996. He has further stated that he has not placed the same on record. He has also stated that he can not produce the same. Here again the workman has given no reason as to why he can not produce the proof available with him regarding his appointment with effect from 22.3.1996. Accordingly I find no substance in this contention of the workman that he was appointed with the management with effect from 22.3.1996.
During his cross-examination, the workman has also admitted it as correct that he had never demanded any facility from the management. This also falsify the stand taken by the workman in his statement of claim that when he demanded the legal facilities, the management got annoyed and his services were terminated.
The workman has failed to prove that he had been in the employment -8- ID 260/2006 of the management with effect from 22.3.1996. On the other hand, the management has taken a specific stand that the workman was appointed with the management with effect from 2.7.1997. Admittedly, the workman has worked with the management upto 12.2.1998. Since the workman has worked with the management with effect from 2.7.1997 to 12.2.1998, he has not completed the continuous service of 240 days with the management, as such, the claim of the workman does not fall within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman. I S S U E No.3 While adjudicating upon issue No.2, it has already been held that the workman has worked with the management with effect from 2.7.1997 to 12.2.1998, he has not completed the continuous service of 240 days with the management, as such, the claim of the workman does not fall within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the claim of the workman does not fall within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it can be safely concluded that there is no Industrial Dispute between the claimant and the management as defined under section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
-9- ID 260/2006I S S U E No.4 Since the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days with the management, the claim of the workman does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Accordingly, it can not be held that the services of the claimant Sh.Ramesh Verma were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management. Issue No.4 is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman. RELIEF In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant Sh.Ramesh Verma is not entitled to any relief. As such, the claim of the claimant Sh.Ramesh Verms is rejected. Award is passed accordingly and the reference is answered accordingly. Copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court
on this 8th day of April 2008 (SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer - Labour Court No.XX
(Fast Track) Karkardooma Courts Delhi