Delhi District Court
Sh. Trilok Chand vs M/S Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd on 18 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO,
(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE),
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. 02, ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
LID No. 583/2019
Date of institution 01.06.2015
Date of Award 18.09.2021
Sh. Trilok Chand,
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o 1B, 2860, Bihari Colony,
Shahdara ,Delhi-110032.
Phone No. of the claimant: 8860228944
Sh. N.A. Sebastian, AR for the workman.
Phone No. of the AR of the claimant: 9871719929
[email protected]
...Claimant/workman
Vs.
M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
Times of India
7, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Sh. Ashok Srivstava
Mb. No. 9810496027
Email: [email protected]
Sh. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Raavi Birbal, AR for the
management.
Phone No. Of the AR of the management: 9818024661
Email:[email protected]
.....Management
LID No. 583/2019 Page 1 of 55
AWARD
1. This award of mine will dispose off the statement of
claim filed by Sh. Trilok Chand (hereinafter, will be referred to as
'claimant') against M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter,
will be referred to as management), stating therein that he was
serving in the management since 24.08.1988 and lastly posted in
the printing plant at 15/A, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP at the post of
Rotery Machineman, Rotery Department and his last drawn salary
was Rs. 35,000/- per month.
2. The claimant has also stated that he served in the management
honestly in the printing plant of the management, wherein, the
chemicals were used to wash the machine and tools. There was no
ventilation or facility of air condition. He has alleged that the
management has failed to provide the facilities of ventilation and
air condition despite of repeated requests of the claimant and in
view of the same, the claimant is suffering from physical ailments
i.e. the damage of his kidneys and the claimant has also failed to
perform his duties continuously. He was on leave without payment
since 28.01.2013, but, from 28.01.2013 to the date of termination
of his services i.e. 17.10.2013, the claimant gave each and every
medical certificate of his ill health in his department, as well as, in
the personnel department.
3. The claimant has also stated that he was medically examined by
the medical officer of the management, wherein, the medical
officer of the management had observed that the claimant is
suffering from chronic kidney disease. He has also averred that he
remained continuously on dialyses and the doctor had also
LID No. 583/2019 Page 2 of 55
observed that the claimant is not in a position to perform his duties
and even after the transplant of kidney, the claimant was required a
long term rest, as the kidney transplant is a critical surgery. He has
also stated that he was on leave without salary.
4. The claimant has also averred that due to his aforesaid critical
medical condition and in view of physical weakness, he had
decided to leave the services under the scheme of VRS and he had
applied for the VRS. But, the management did not take any
decision on his application for VRS with the malafide intention
and with ulterior motive to grab the benefits of VRS Scheme and
other benefits of the claimant and the management had
chargesheeted to the claimant vide chargesheet dated 16.09.2013,
vide which, the claimant was required to give written explanation
of the same within 72 hours, immediately after receiving the
application of VRS dated 16.09.2013.
5. The claimant has also stated that he had replied the chargesheet
and requested to give some time to join the duties after the
transplant of kidney. But, no response was given by the
management and the management had served the reliving order
dated 17.10.2013, to the claimant, without any enquiry or
information to the claimant, in illegal manner and alleged that the
claimant had withdrawn his application for VRS on the very next
day i.e. on dated 17.09.2013 i.e., one day after the application for
VRS. The claimant has also stated that the true fact is that he did
not withdraw his application for VRS and the management has
intentionally and deliberately used the reply of the chargesheet, as
letter for withdrawal of application for VRS, which is very
shameful for the reputed company like the management.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 3 of 55
6. The claimant has also stated that he has visited the management
at number of occasions and requested to give benefits of VRS
Scheme, pension scheme, provident fund, mediclaim, back wages
and gratuity, but, the management did not pay any heed to his
request and relieved him from his services illegally and in arbitrary
manner.
7. The claimant has also stated that he had received the statement
of full and final settlement dues against the gratuity, salary
adjustment and other dues vide settlement dated 09.12.2013. But,
the management failed to settle the wage board salary, pension
scheme, provident fund, gratuity, mediclaim, for which the
claimant visited the office of the management, but, of no use.
8. The claimant has also stated that the management cleverly with
the malafide intention to gain itself and to cause loss to the
claimant behaved arbitrarily and did not consider the application of
the claimant for VRS and maliciously grabbed the hard earned
money and benefits of the claimant.
9. The claimant has also stated that he is still ready to perform his
duties as rotary machineman. But, on the advice of the elders,
friends and well-wishers, the claimant thought about his VRS
Application, which is still kept by the management and no decision
has been taken thereon by the senior officials of the management.
He has also averred that he is in the urgent need of money for the
surgery of transplant of kidney and further stated that if anything
goes wrong in lack of money, the management is responsible for
the same.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 4 of 55
10. The claimant has also stated that management is liable to pay
back wages as per the wage board from September, 2011, to pay
pension to the claimant, as per pension scheme, to settle the
provident fund account of the claimant, to settle the mediclaim
amount and account of the gratuity of the claimant.
11. The claimant has also stated that the management had illegally
and unlawfully terminated the services of the claimant on dated
17.10.2013, without any fault of him and without following the
rules and regulations.
12. The claimant has also stated that he had sent a legal notice dated
20.05.2014, which was posted on dated 03.06.2014 to the
management and called upon the management to take action on his
application for VRS. But, the management has neither taken any
action nor replied thereof.
13. The claimant has also stated that he had filed a written
complaint dated 18.07.2014, in the office of the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Central District, Pusa Road, New Delhi. But, the
management became adamant and after hearing, the matter was
closed by the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, vide ID/376/
ALC/CD/14/1463 dated 12.03.2015, hence, the claimant has filed
the statement of claim and the claimant has prayed for directing
the management to reinstate the claimant and to give benefits of
VRS Scheme and also to direct the management to settle the
account of back wages, as per the wage board, since, September
2011, to pay pension to the claimant, as per the pension scheme
and to settle amount of mediclaim.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 5 of 55
14. The notice of statement of claim was issued to the management
and on completion of services, the management has appeared
through it's Authorized Representative and filed the written
statement and stating therein that the claim of the claimant is ill
conceived, baseless, concocted and filed with the ulterior motive to
extort the money from the management, to which, the claimant is
not entitled.
15. The management has also stated that the claimant has concealed
the relevant facts from the court that he had received the following
amounts:
Rs. 6,28,940/- towards Gratuity and Leave Encashment.
Rs. 6,01,532/- towards Provident Fund.
Rs. 1,78,674/- towards Wage Revision Arrear.
16. It is also stated that the claimant has not come to the court with
clean hands, as, he concealed the material facts from the court.
17. It is further stated that this court does not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate on the present matter, as the claimant was posted at
Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh.
18. It is also stated that the claimant is not workman within the
definition of the workman given under Section 2 (s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, as his last drawn salary was Rs. 35,000/-
per month.
19. The management has also stated that no demand notice was
given by the claimant, so, the claim of the claimant is liable to be
dismissed.
20. It is also stated that there is no valid espousal.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 6 of 55
21. The management has also stated that the present claim has been
filed to pressurize the management and to cause harassment to the
management. It is also stated that the claimant has concealed the
material fact that prior to the filing of the present claim, he had
filed similar false and frivolous complaint before the National
Commission for women, New Delhi through his wife and sought
same relief. But, the same was rejected.
22. Replying to the statement of claim on merit, the management
has admitted that the claimant was in service of the management
and he was lastly posted at printing plant, 15A, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, UP, on the post of Machineman, Rotary Department
and the claimant was drawing Rs. 35,000/- per month, as salary. It
is denied that the claimant is workman under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
23. The management has denied that the claimant had worked in the
management in adverse condition and stated that printing plant of
the management at Sahibabad, where the claimant was posted is an
ISO Certified plant with proper ventilation and air conditioned
facility, wherein, more than 300 workers are working in the day
and night shifts.
24. The management has denied that this claimant had worked
honestly. It has also denied that due to inadequate ventilation or air
condition facility, the claimant had suffered any ailment and
further stated that infact, the habit of the claimant of drinking led
to failure of his kidney. It is also stated that more than 300
workers are working in the said plant of the management. But, the
management had not received any complaint from the workers in
respect of facility of ventilation therein nor any of the workers had
LID No. 583/2019 Page 7 of 55
suffered from any ailment. It is also stated that the claimant had
never approached to the management regarding working condition
etc., of the plant and also stated that the services of the claimant
were terminated due to continuous ill health, so, such termination
is not illegal. It is also stated that the management had waited for
the claimant for sufficient time. It is also stated that the claimant
was a habitual absentee for the last 29 years.
25. The management has also stated that the claimant was not
medically fit to perform his duties and this fact is admitted by the
claimant that he was incapable and unwilling to work in future. It
is also stated that the work of the management had suffered since
long time, so, the management had no option, but, to relieve the
claimant. So, he was relieved on dated 17.10.2013.
26. The management has also stated that the claimant was
continuously ill since long time and he remained absent from
duties since 28.01.2013 and he was issued letter dated 16.09.2013.
It is also stated that the claimant was absenting from duties since
long time and for about 8 months, he was unable to perform his
duties and he had informed to the management that he might go
for transplantation of kidney, which could take time and he would
not be able to attend his duties. It is also stated that the
management also got the claimant checked from the medical
officer of the company, who had opined that the claimant would
not be able to perform his duties for a long time. The management
has further stated that it had cooperated the claimant and supported
him by way of giving many leaves. It is also stated that in view of
continuous ill health of the claimant, he was not able to perform
his duties since long time. So, it was appropriate for the
LID No. 583/2019 Page 8 of 55
management to discontinue the claimant and the claimant was
given time to reply.
27. It is further stated that the claimant had replied through his
application dated 16.09.2013, wherein, he himself has admitted
that he is suffering from ailments and he is absenting for the past
months and he opted for voluntarily retirement under Voluntarily
Retirement Scheme (VRS) from the service of the management
and the claimant was informed that the acceptance of VRS
Application was subject to the necessary approval and his
application might be rejected, if the circumstances are so
warranted. It is also stated that before the application of the
claimant could be processed, on the next day i.e., on dated
17.09.2013, he had approached the personnel department of the
management and gave a letter stating therein that he would like to
return to his work after the surgery of transplantation of kidney
and rest. Thus, this claimant had virtually withdrawn his VRS.
28. It is further stated that thereafter, the management tried to
contact with the claimant, but, he failed to respond and in the
given facts and circumstances, the management had relieved the
claimant from his services on the ground of continuous ill health of
the claimant and all the dues were duly paid to the claimant. The
management has also stated that after withdrawal of VRS
Application, there was no question to proceed with the same and
also stated that the provisions of VRS have been framed as per
guidelines laid down by statutory provision/ Income Tax Act. The
option of VRS is available to the working employees depending
upon multiple factors/work exigencies and that too from
prospective date and not for the ex-employee and/or from any
LID No. 583/2019 Page 9 of 55
retrospective date. It is also stated that getting VRS is not matter of
right for the employees. It is sole discretion of the management
depends upon various factors.
29. The management has further stated that since, the claimant had
given his letter dated 17.09.2013 for withdrawing his VRS
application, so, there was no question for the management to
proceed with his VRS application or to grant him VRS benefits
and even otherwise, getting VRS/ payment is not a matter of right
of employee and it is sole discretion of the management whether to
accept or not any VRS application, considering work exigencies
and other merits/ circumstances and VRS is only available for
existing employees and not for Ex-employees from retrospective
effect.
30. The management has also stated that the claimant was paid full
and final dues total whereof are as under:
a) Rs. 6,28,940/- towards Gratuity and Leave encashment
b) Rs. 6,01,532/- towards Provident Fund
c) Rs. 1,78,674/- towards Wage Revision Arrear
31. It is also stated that the claimant had received full and final
settlement amount before the Conciliation Officer. The
management has denied that the claimant had visited the
management.
32. It is also stated that the Pension Scheme i.e. Employee Pension
Scheme, 1955 is controlled by the officer Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner and the claimant can claim due pension directly or
through the company, after completion of necessary formalities
and same is not within the jurisdiction of this court. It is also stated
that as per the policy of the employer, the mediclaim policy is only
LID No. 583/2019 Page 10 of 55
for the existing employees and not for Ex or retired employees. It
is also stated that the claim of the claimant is without jurisdiction
and after receiving of the payment from the management, no
dispute has been left between the parties. The management has
denied that it had not considered the application of the claimant for
VRS with the malafide intention to grab hard earned money of the
claimant. The management has denied to have received any
demand notice from the claimant.
33. It is also stated that even in the past record of the claimant was
not good and stated that this claimant was issued show cause
notice dated 03.04.2012 when, he was found absent during the
period January, 2009 to December 2011 and the claimant had
given letter dated 24.04.2012, wherein, he had admitted his
mistake and also tendered apology and he had also admitted
therein that in view of his absence, the management had faced lot
of difficulties and he assured that in future, he would not repeat the
same. It is also stated that the claimant was given warning letter
dated 07.09.2011 for being unauthorizedly absent since 25.08.2011
till 06.09.2011 and his past unauthorized absence from 16.06.2011
to 29.06.2011 was also mentioned therein.
34. It is also stated the claimant was given penalty letter dated
09.04.2003, as he was unauthorizedly absenting for 18 times in the
year 2000, 12 times in the year 2001 and thereafter, till September,
2002 for 14 times and an enquiry was conducted and his increment
was stopped.
35. It is also stated that the claimant was issued numerous warnings
dated 08.10.1997, 26.03.1998, 24.09.1998, 27.09.1998 and
04.06.1999.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 11 of 55
36. It is also stated that the management had issued show cause
notice dated 19.02.1997 to the claimant for unauthorizedly
absenting on various occasions and the claimant was also given
another show cause notice dated 06.05.1996 for unauthorizedly
absenting.
37. It is further stated that on dated 31.05.1991, warning letter was
issued to the claimant when in an advertisement relating to the
Delhi Lotteries, which appeared in Times of India dated
03.05.1991, the lines "the next draw on dated 09.05.1991 at 1
p.m., at IMA Auditorium, ITO, New Delhi" were repeated that too
with the wrong date as "the next draw on 25.04.1991." Such type
of carelessness and negligence resulted in disrepute of the
newspaper and caused financial loss to the management.
38. It is also stated that the claimant was also issued show cause
notice dated December 18, 1984 and show cause notice dated July
7th, 1987 for misusing leave. He was also issued advisory letter
dated 22.03.1985, letter dated 28.01.1985 to ensure reporting on
time and he was issued letter dated 18.12.1984 for unauthorizedly
absenting from duties.
39. It is also stated that on dated 30.10.1984, the claimant was
issued show cause notice, as he was found in the habit of
disappearing from his post during duty hours and on dated
17.10.1984, the claimant disappeared from his place of work and
enquiry revealed that as matter of practice, he was playing cards in
the canteen during working hours and wandering in the premises.
It is further stated that the written explanation dated 30.10.1984,
was demanded from the claimant regarding such misconduct, but,
LID No. 583/2019 Page 12 of 55
after examining his reply, a lenient view was taken by the
management and he was warned to be careful in future and after
denying the other allegations leveled in the statement of claim, the
management has prayed for dismissal of the statement of claim.
40. The claimant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of
management and denied the averments made in the written
statement and reiterated the contents of his statement of claim
therein and stated that the dues paid by the management are not
full and final settlement and the same were paid by the
management only after arising of the dispute between the parties to
the present lis. He has also stated that even the management had
made the payment of amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Credit and
Theft Society of the Workers on behalf of the claimant that too
without his consent and the management has intentionally and
deliberately harassed and humiliated to the claimant. He has also
stated that the amount of PF is still lying with the PF Department.
He has also stated that the management had compelled to the
claimant to perform his duties at Sahibabad with the malafide
intention and ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the claimant
and the claimant has prayed for dismissal of the written statement.
41. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed
by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide his order dated
12.05.2016:
(i) Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the case
as the claimant was posted in Sahibabad, UP and his service
had come to an end at that place? OPM
(ii) Whether the claimant himself abandoned the job by
remaining absent from duty w.e.f. 28.01.2013? OPM
LID No. 583/2019 Page 13 of 55
(iii) Whether the termination of services of the claimant by the
management on 17.10.2013 is illegal and/or unjustifiable?
OPW
(iv) Relief.
42. In order to prove his case, the claimant has examined himself as
WW1 vide his affidavit Ex. WW1/A. He has not only reiterated the
contents of his statement of claim therein, but, in addition to it, he
has also testified that he joined the service of the management at
New Delhi and he continued to work there upto the year of 2009
and thereafter, the printing press of the management was shifted at
Sahibabad, despite of this, the claimant had to report for duty at
New Delhi office from where, the claimant was taken in the bus of
the management at the place of his work at Sahibabad. He has also
testified that the supervision and control of the claimant was from
Delhi and all the officers were operating from Delhi and only
production supervisors etc. were available at Sahibabad, which
was the printing press. He has also testified that all the official
communications addressed to the claimant, during the 36 year of
his service were issued from Delhi only and he was never issued
any communication from Sahibabad and he has relied upon the
documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6 and Mark A to Z6. He was
cross examined by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the
management.
43. The claimant did not examine any other witness and closed his
evidence.
44. The management has examined Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma, as
MW1 vide his affidavit Ex. MW1/A. He has relied upon the
documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/25. He was cross-examined the
LID No. 583/2019 Page 14 of 55
Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimant. The management
did not examine any other witness and closed it's evidence.
45. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the
parties and perused the record.
46. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimant has
submitted that the claimant had served is in the management since
1997 and thereafter, he was transferred by the management in the
year 2008. But, he remained under the control of the office of the
management situated at New Delhi. He has also submitted that the
claimant was suffering from disease of kidney and for
transplantation of kidney, he proceeded on leave and on dated
17.10.2013, the services of the claimant were terminated illegally
and unjustifiably. He has also submitted that since, the relieving
order dated 17.10.2013 photocopy whereof is Mark Y was issued
from New Delhi, so, this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
this matter. He has also submitted that since, the claimant
remained under the control of the office of management at New
Delhi, so, even if, the last place of posting of the claimant was
away at Sahibabad, it is inconsequential. He has relied upon the
judgments:
(i) Nand Ram vs M/s Garwari Polyuster Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1409/2016
(ii) Bikash Bhushan Bhose and Others vs M/s Novertis India Ltd. & Anr.,
Appeal (Civil) 2201/2007
(iii) Raj Kumar Jaiswal vs Rangi International Ltd. CM (M) 1337/2007
(iv) Sh. Mahipal Singh vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III & Ors.,
W.P. (C) 3802/1998,
(v) Vinod Singh Yadav vs M/s Securitans India Pvt. Ltd. W.P(C) 185/2016
(vi) G.T. Lad & Ors. Vs Chemical and Fibers of India Ltd., 1979 AIR 582.
(vii) Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Karnti Junior Adhyapak & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 6767/2013
LID No. 583/2019 Page 15 of 55
47. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the
management has submitted that this claimant has averred in para
No.1 of his statement of claim that he was lastly posted at Printing
Plant, 15/A, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad UP at the post of Rotary
Machineman and submitted that in view of place of posting of the
claimant, at Sahibabad, this court does not have territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter, therefore, issue
No.1 may be decided in favour of the management.
48. She has also submitted that the claimant has concealed the
material facts from the court that he had already received Rs.
6,28,940/- being amount of Gratuity and leave encashment, Rs.
6,01,532/- as provident fund and Rs. 1,78,674/- being wage
revision arrear.
49. She has also submitted that the services of the claimant have not
been terminated, but, as the claimant has admitted that he was not
maintaining good health, so, he has been relieved on the ground of
his continuous ill health as per the provision of Section 2 (oo)(c) of
the Industrial Disputes Act. So, he is not entitled to get any relief
under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
50. She has also submitted that vide transfer letter Ex.MW1/2, the
claimant was transferred at Sahibabad on dated 25.04.2008 and he
was directed to report for duty to the Incharge of the Rotary
Department at Sahibabad on dated 01.05.2008. She has also
submitted that this claimant was discharged in view of his ill
health as per the provisions of Section 2(oo) (c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. She has also submitted that the definition of
retrenchment provided under Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act makes it
LID No. 583/2019 Page 16 of 55
clear that the termination of services of a workman on the ground
of continues illness of a workman is not included in the
retrenchment. She has also submitted that since, the claimant
remained on leave for 10 months in view of his illness and he was
not able to perform his duties in view of his ill health, as both his
kidneys were got failed, so, the claimant was relieved as per
provision of Section 2(oo)(c), he was never retrenched. So, he is
not entitled to get any relief under Section 25 F of the ID Act. She
has also submitted that the claimant had received his entire
emoluments from the management under receipts, which have
been placed on record being Ex.MW1/6.
51. She has also submitted that prior to the filing of the statement of
claim in the court, the claimant has also approached to the Labour
office at Delhi and since, the claimant was lastly posted at
Sahibabad, so, the inspecting officer, Central District Delhi in his
report Ex.MW1/5 was pleased to write in his report that "it was
found that applicant at the time of alleged illegal termination was
posted at Printing Plant, 15-A, Sahibabad, UP on the post of
Rotary Machineman in the Rotary Department, therefore, the
applicant is directed to file the case before the appropriate
authority". The Ld. AR for the management has also submitted that
despite of such report, the claimant has filed statement of claim in
this court, whereas the claimant was supposed to file the case
before the appropriate authority having jurisdiction at Sahibabad.
52. She has further submitted that the management has placed on
record, the copy of the chargesheet and warning letters, which
shows that the claimant was not performing his duties diligently
and from the chargsheet Ex.MW1/6, it is also clear that the
LID No. 583/2019 Page 17 of 55
claimant had availed unauthorized 47 leaves between February,
1996 to February, 1997 and submitted that since, this claimant was
not performing his duties diligently, so, he was chargesheeted and
he was given various warning letters for availing unauthorized
leaves.
53. She has also submitted that MW1 Sh. Sushil Kumar has
categorically deposed in his testimony vide his affidavit
Ex.MW1/A that the plant of the management at Sahibabad is
computerized and automatic and submitted that since testimony of
the MW1 has gone unimpeached and the plant of the management
at Sahibabad is computerized and fully air-conditioned and
submitted that computers cannot run without air-condition.
54. She has also submitted that the claimant did not serve any
demand notice to the management prior to the filing of the claim
against the management, so, the claim of the management is not
maintainable in the absence of service of any demand notice to the
management.
55. She has also submitted that the Ld. AR for the claimant has
relied upon many judgments, but, the facts of said cases were
totally different from the facts of the present case. So, the
judgments relied upon the Ld. AR for the claimant in the present
case are not applicable to the case in hand.
56. She has also submitted that the management has placed on
record the photographs of the management at Sahibabad
Ex.MW1/1, wherein the claimant was transferred way back in the
year 2008. She has also submitted that the management has also
placed on record the attendance sheet for the month of May, 2008
LID No. 583/2019 Page 18 of 55
Ex.MW1/3, wherein it is mentioned that the claimant had joined
the office of the management at Sahibabad w.e.f. 01.05.2008. She
has also submitted that the claimant has written an apology letter
Ex. MW1/4, wherein, the claimant had mentioned his place of
posting Rotary Department Sahibabad. She has also submitted that
this claimant has taken a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the co-
operative society and the management had deducted the said
amount, as it was not repaid by the claimant and the management
had given the remaining amount vide receipts Ex.MW1/6 (colly).
She has also submitted that the claimant was admittedly serving in
the management at Sahibabad since 2008 till 2013 and even if,
relieving order Mark Y was issued from the office of the
management at New Delhi, it is inconsequential as the said
relieving order was operative at Sahibabad, because the services of
the claimant had come to an end at Sahibabad.
57. She has relied upon the judgment as follows:
(i) M.Vadivelu vs Rajkishan & Company & Ors., 2014 SCC online
Del 4288
(ii) Gelxo Smith Klin Pharmaceutical Ltd. vs Abhay Raj Jain & Anr.,
2008 SCC online Bom 756
(iii) Lohia Star Linger Ltd. & Ors. vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
MANU/DE/2046/2006
(iv) Paritosh Kumar Pal vs State of Bihar & Ors.,
MANU/BH/0179/1984
(v) Shailender Kuamr vs The Secretary (Labour) & Ors.,
MANU/DE/ 3081/2015.
(vi) Dr. Mukesh Aghi vs Steria Ltd. & Ors., 2016, SCC online, Del
1482.
(vii) Dharambir Singh vs M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. & Ors., LPA
No. 590/2009.
(viii) Anand Bihari & Ors. Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jaipur & Ors., MANU/SC/0233/1991.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 19 of 55
(ix) Rama Swami Murugesh vs S.G. Bholsale, Presiding Officer-V,
Labour Court & Anr., 2005 SCC Online Bom. 682.
(x) Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Vs Left. Governor, Delhi & Ors.,
AIR 1970 Delhi 60.
(xi) Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal of
Gujrat & Ors., 1968 AIR 529.
58. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimant has
submitted in rebuttal that the management has claimed that it had
relieved the claimant the as per provision of Section 2 (oo) (c) of
the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground of his continuous ill
health. But, the management has failed to prove on record that the
defects in the kidneys of the claimant had permanently disabled to
the claimant to perform his duties.
59. He has also submitted that the copy of certificate of Medical
Officer of the management Mark T cannot be relied upon as being
Medical Officer of the management she had given the report of the
claimant in favour of the management. He has also submitted that
the management has nowhere pleaded in it's pleading that the
claimant was unable to perform his duties in view of his ill health
or there was any deficiency in performance of his duties due to
defects in the kidneys of the claimant. He has also submitted that
continuous illness as mentioned under Section 2 (oo) (c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, which permanently affects the
performance of a person and further submitted that in the case in
hand, the management has failed to lead any evidence that in view
of failures of kidneys of the claimant, the claimant was unable to
perform his duties permanently and submitted that in the absence
of any cogent evidence to this effect that such illness of the
claimant had incapacitated to the claimant to perform his duties.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 20 of 55
The relieving of the claimant by the management is illegal and
unjustified as the same does not fall within the ambits of Section 2
(oo) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has relied upon the
judgments:
(i) Lalit Mohan Puri vs Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd, 1992 ILL N 780
(ii) K. Venatiah vs Govt. of India, Ministry of -----1978 11 CJ 48 AP
(iii) Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd. Vs Their Workmen Mohinder Deep & ---,
1992 I LLJ 616 Ori
(iv) Croz-Beckert Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Presiding Officer CPW No. 8648 of
2009
(v) Rama Swami Murugesh vs Sh. S.G. Bhonsle, 2005 (5) Bom., CR 854
(vi) Mrs. Meera Dandekar vs M/s Indian Institute of Bankers, WP no.
583/1997.
60. In rebuttal thereof, the Ld. Authorized Representatives for the
management has submitted that in case in hand, the management
has examined Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma as MW1 vide his affidavit
Ex.MW1/A, wherein the same witness has categorically deposed
that this claimant was relieved from the services on 17.10.2013 on
the ground of his ill health, which was duly confirmed by his
medical examination, and also by the medical certificates of the
claimant produce before the management and similarly, this MW1
has also deposed that the claimant has accepted that he was not
medically fit to perform his duties and further submitted that the
letter of the claimant Ex.MW1/8 reveals that the claimant has
mentioned therein that as he is not maintaining good health, so, he
has resign under the scheme of VRS. She has also submitted that
the photocopy of the certificate dated 13.09.2013 Mark T issued by
the doctor of the management reveals that the doctor had certified
that the claimant had plan to go for kidney transplantation, after
which he would require long rest as this is a complicated and
LID No. 583/2019 Page 21 of 55
serious surgery needing many formalities and procedure and at that
time, the claimant was unfit to join work and submitted that the
testimony of the MW1 has gone unrebutted and since, the claimant
was working as Rotary Machineman and it was a heavy work as
heavy reels are loaded in the Rotary Machine, weight of which
remains approximately 150 kgs and heavy metal plates are also
fixed in the Rotary machine, weight of each plate remains about 50
kg and submitted that in view of failure of kidneys of the claimant,
he was not able to perform his duties, so, the claimant was legally
relieved as per provision of Section 2 (oo) (c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act in view of his continuous ill health.
61. She has also submitted that the claimant did not serve any
demand notice to the management prior to the filing of the present
case against the management. So, on this ground also the statement
of claim of the claimant may be dismissed.
62. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made
by Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the
record.
63. The perusal of record reveals that the claimant has filed the
statement of claim stating therein that he was working in the
management since, 24.08.1988 and lastly posted at Printing Plant,
15/A, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP as Rotary Machineman and the
management has illegally terminated his services from 17.10.2013.
The management has taken the plea that the claim of the claimant
is false, baseless and concocted and the claimant has concealed the
material facts that he had already received Rs. 6,28,940/- being
amount of Gratuity and leave encashment. Rs. 6,01,532/- as
provident fund and Rs. 1,78,674/- being wage revision arrear and
LID No. 583/2019 Page 22 of 55
since, the claimant was not able to perform his duties, as per the
opinion of the medical officer, so, the management had relieved to
the claimant from services on the ground of his ill health. The
management has also taken the plea that since, the claimant was
lastly posted at Sahibabad, so, this court lacks territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter.
64. The burden of proving issue no.3 was on the claimant, whereas
the burden of proving issue no. 1 and 2 was on the management.
65. In order to prove his case, the claimant has examined himself as
WW1 vide his affidavit Ex. WW1/A. He has not only reiterated the
contents of his statement of claim therein, but, in addition to it, he
has also testified that he joined the service of the management at
New Delhi and he continued to work there upto the year of 2009
and thereafter, the printing press of the management was shifted at
Sahibabad, despite of this, the claimant had to report for duty at
New Delhi office from where, the claimant was taken in the bus of
the management at the place of his work at Sahibabad. He has also
testified that the supervision and control of the claimant was from
Delhi and all the officers were operating from Delhi and only
production supervisors etc were available at Sahibabad, which was
the printing press. He has also testified that all the official
communications addressed to the claimant, during the 36 year of
his service were issued from Delhi only and he was never issued
any communication from Sahibabad. He has relied upon the
documents viz. photocopy of the failure report dated 12.03.2015
Mark A, photocopy of appointment letter dated 22.08.1978
Ex.WW1/1, photocopy of office note dated 05.04.1988
Ex.WW1/2, photocopy of office note dated 24.01.1991
LID No. 583/2019 Page 23 of 55
Ex.WW1/3, photocopy of office note dated 12.11.1991
Ex.WW1/4, photocopy of show cause notice dated 06.05.1996
Mark B, photocopy of letter dated 31.05.1991 Ex.WW1/5,
photocopy of letter (AROP PATAR) dated 19.02.1997 Mark C,
photocopy of letter dated 04.10.1997 Mark D, photocopy of letter
dated 24.09.1998 is Mark E, photocopy of letter dated 28.09.1998
Mark F, photocopy of letter dated 04.06.1999 Mark G, photocopy
of letter (AROP PATAR) dated 13.11.2002 Mark H, photocopy of
letter dated 04.10.2001 is Ex.WW1/6, photocopy of letter dated
18.11.2002 Mark I, photocopy of letter dated 26.03.1998 Mark J,
photocopy of letter dated 09.04.2003 Mark K, photocopy of letter
dated 15.09.2015 Mark L, photocopy of letter dated 29.07.2005
Mark M, photocopy of letter dated 07.09.2011 Mark N, photocopy
of letter dated 03.04.2012 Mark O, photocopy of telegram dated
11.04.2012 Mark P, photocopy of letter dated 23.07.2013 Mark Q,
photocopy of Identity Card Mark R, photocopy of letter dated
11.09.2013 is Mark S, photocopy of treatment record dated
13.09.2013 Mark T, photocopy of letter dated 16.09.2013 Mark U,
photocopy of letter dated 16.09.2013 Mark V, photocopy of letter-
2 dated 16.09.2013 Mark W, copy of full and final settlement
dated 09.12.2013 Mark X, copy of letter dated 17.10.2013
(relieving order) Mark Y, copy of letter dated 26.02.2014 Mark Z,
copy of full and final settlement dated 09.12.2013 Mark Z1, copy
of letter dated 23.05.2014 Mark Z2, copy of legal notice dated
30.05.2014 Mark Z3, copy of Statement of claim filed by the
claimant before the Conciliation Officer Mark Z4, copy of letter
dated 08.08.2014 Mark Z5 and copy of letter dated 12.03.2015
LID No. 583/2019 Page 24 of 55
Mark Z6. This witness was cross examined by ld. Authorized
Representative for the management.
66. During his cross examination, the claimant has admitted that he
was transferred at Sahibabad in the year 2008. He has deposed that
he is not aware if in 1991 a new printing press was established by
the management at Sahibabad. He has admitted that the unit of the
management was not shifted at Sahibabad in the year 1991. He has
denied that he used to report for his duty at Sahibabad since 2008.
He has voluntarily deposed that firstly, he used to report at ITO in
Delhi and then used to go on his duty at Sahibabad. He has denied
that he has deposed falsely in this regard. He has deposed that he
used to live at Shahdara even when, he was transferred at
Sahibabad by the management. He has deposed that he is not in
possession of any proof to prove that firstly, he used to report for
duty at ITO in Delhi and then he used to go at Sahibabad. He has
deposed that the distance between Shahdara and Sahibabad is 3
km. He has deposed that he is not aware about the distance
between Shahdara and ITO Delhi. He has deposed that he cannot
say whether distance between Shahdara and ITO is of 15 kms or
not. He has deposed that he also does not know, whether the
distance between Shahdara and ITO is of about 18 kms. He has
deposed that he does not know whether the management had
arranged the private/charted buses for his employees. He has
admitted that he used to go at his office at Sahibabad in the bus of
the management. He has deposed that he does not know whether
the bus of the management also used to go from Seelampur or not.
He has deposed that he does not know whether the distance
between Seelampur and Shahdara is of 2 km. He has deposed that
LID No. 583/2019 Page 25 of 55
he does not know whether the bus of the management started from
Seelampur used to go via Shahdara or not. He has admitted that he
remained posted at Sahibabad for about 5 years. He has deposed
that his last posting was also at Sahibabad. He has admitted that
he used to mark his attendance at Sahibabad through punching of
card. He has voluntarily deposed that he also used to mark his
attendance by punching of card even at ITO, when he used to get
late only then he used to mark his attendance at ITO at Delhi by
way of punching of his card. He has denied that he has deposed
falsely in this regard that he used to mark his attendance by way of
punching of his card at ITO after his posting at Sahibabad. He has
deposed that he cannot show any proof that he had ever marked his
attendance at ITO in Delhi after 2008. He has admitted that when,
he used to get late in arriving on his duty at Sahibabad due to the
fault of the transport of the management, no deduction of his
salary was done. He has admitted that his leave was sanctioned by
Personnel Manager at Sahibabad. He has voluntarily deposed that
some times, he used to refuse to take his leave application. He has
denied that he has deposed falsely regarding such refusal by
Personnel Manager. He has deposed that he never filed any
complaint against Personnel Manager, who refused to take his
leave application. He has voluntarily deposed that as he used to
refuse his leave application occasionally, as most of the time, he
used to receive his leave application. He has admitted that his over
time was also sanctioned by Personnel Manager of the
management at Sahibabad. He has admitted that all the important
letter of the management related to North-East India are signed by
the authority of the management at Delhi.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 26 of 55
67. He has denied that the plant of the management at Sahibabad
was fully air-conditioned at that time. He has voluntarily deposed
that even now, it is not fully air-conditioned. He has denied that he
has deposed falsely to this effect. He has deposed that he does not
know whether the plant of the management at Sahibabad is
certified by ISO (International Standard Organization).
68. He has denied that no other employee of the management had
suffered from the problem of Kidney in the Sahibabad unit of the
management. He has also denied that no other employee of the
management who were posted in the unit of the management at
Sahibabad had got transplantation of his kidney.
69. When this witness was asked to tell the name of any such
employee of the management, who was posted in the unit of the
management at Sahibabad, who had got his kidney transplanted or
that who had suffered the problem of kidney, then, he has deposed
that now, he cannot tell the name of any such person.
70. He has denied that there was no other person like this. He has
also denied that at the time of termination of his services by the
management in the year 2013 about 900-1000 employees were
working in the unit of the management at Sahibabad. He has
admitted that about 300 employees were working in the rotary
section of the management at Sahibabad when his services were
terminated by the management in the year 2013 and none of those
300 employees had suffered from the problem of kidney. He has
again said that one employee of the management posted in the
rotary Section of the management at Sahibabad had suffered from
Kidney problem. He has denied that he has deposed falsely that
one person posted in the rotary Section of the management at
LID No. 583/2019 Page 27 of 55
Sahibabad had suffered from Kidney problem. He has also
deposed that he cannot tell the name of that employee of the
management. He has denied that he was in the habit of consuming
excessive quantity of liquor.
71. He has denied that he used to receive all the letters from the
personnel manager of the management at Sahibabad. He has
voluntarily deposed that he used to receive the letters from
personnel manager of the management at ITO. He has also denied
that he has deposed falsely in this regard or that he does not have
any proof that letters were delivered by ITO Delhi. He has denied
that all the letters to the employees of the management, who are
posted in the Sahibabad unit of the management were delivered by
personnel manager at Sahibabad. He has voluntarily deposed that
there was no such personnel manager of the management in the
unit of the management at Sahibabad. He has denied that there
were three personnel managers, namely, Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Sh.
Govind Sharma and Sh. Sujeet Patnaik of the management in the
unit of Sahibabad, at that time. He has again said that the
personnel manager from ITO Delhi used to go at Sahibabad. He
has denied that the abovesaid three personnel managers used to sit
in the unit of the management at Sahibabad permanently. He has
also denied that Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Sh. Govind Sharma and Sh.
Sujeet Patnaik used to supervise him in the unit of the management
at Sahibabad apart from the other officers at Sahibabad. He has
admitted that department manager of the management used to sit
in the unit of the management at Sahibabad and he used to
sanction his leave. He does not know that whether the said
manager used to supervise him or not.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 28 of 55
72. He has deposed that he had never requested to the management
to install air-conditioned in the management's unit, at Sahibabad.
He has voluntarily deposed that there was not even single fan in
the said unit, where he was posted. He has denied that the unit of
the management at Sahibabad was having facility of centralized
Air-conditioned, when, he was posted at there.
73. He has denied that he had withdrawn his application for VRS in
the management. He has admitted it to be correct that he had
applied for VRS on 16.09.2013. He has denied that he had
withdrawn his said application for VRS on 17.09.2013.
74. When, the Authorized Representative for the management had
shown the original document Mark S, then this claimant had
identified his signatures there on at point A. The same was then
Ex.WW1/M1 bearing date 17.09.2013.
75. He has deposed that he does not know whether he had
mentioned the date of his transplantation of kidney in his affidavit.
He has also deposed that he cannot read the documents mark Z3
and Mark Z4 because they are written in English and he does not
know about the nature of Mark Z3 and Z4. He has also deposed
that the contents of Mark X (also Ex.WW1/M2) are correct. He
has admitted it to be correct that he had never controverted the
contents of Ex.WW1/M2.
76. He has admitted it to be correct that he had received the total
amount of his PF and gratuity. He has voluntarily deposed that he
does not know whether the said amounts were correct or incorrect.
He has admitted it to be correct that he has never written any letter
regarding correctness or incorrectness of his amount of PF and
LID No. 583/2019 Page 29 of 55
Gratuity, to the management. He has denied that he had received
his amount of leave encashment from the management. He has
admitted it to be correct that he has already received amount Rs.
1,78,674/- on account of wage board arrears from the
management.
77. He has admitted it to be correct that the management had
provided him the facility of mediclaim and accidental. He has
voluntarily deposed that he did not receive any mediclaim. He has
deposed that he did not file any claim before the insurance
company. He has voluntarily deposed that such claim could be
filed through the management. He has denied that he has deposed
falsely in this regard. He has deposed that he does not know
whether any agent of Raksha TPA sits in the company office at
Delhi to whom papers are submitted by complete North-East India.
He has voluntarily deposed that he had earlier claimed the amount
under the mediclaim facility in the management, as he used to
apply for the same before the personnel manager at ITO Delhi and
then, he used to receive the cheque from personnel manager. He
has denied that he has deposed falsely in this regard. He has
deposed that he cannot show any proof thereof and he does not
know that every claim is taken care of by insurance company and
the personnel manager of the concerned unit can only answered
query in this regard.
78. He has admitted it to be correct that Mark U (also
Ex.WW1/M3) is the show cause notice received by him. He has
also deposed that he had tried to find the job, but, he could get any
job.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 30 of 55
79. He has denied that he used to remain absent unauthorizedly
many times. He has also denied that he cannot work on heavy
machine. He has voluntarily deposed that he can do any work for
money.
80. He has admitted it to be correct that he has reached at the age of
his superannuation. He has admitted it to be correct that he is
receiving pension.
81. He has deposed that he cannot read English, so, he could not
read his affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He has also deposed that he
understood the contents of his affidavit from his Authroized
Representative. He has denied that he has deposed falsely or that
he has filed false case.
82. The claimant did not examine any other witness and closed his
evidence.
83. Management has examined Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma as MW1
vide his affidavit Ex. MW1/A. He has deposed on the similar lines
of the written statement of the management. He has relied upon the
documents viz. photographs of the plant Ex. MW1/1 (colly),
photocopy of the transfer letter Ex.MW1/2, photocopy of relevant
pages of Muster Roll (form-12) from 1st May 2008 to 15th of July,
2008 Ex.MW1/3 (colly), photocopies of letters written by Trilok
Chand to management which shows his place of working at
Sahibabad from Ex. MW1/4 (colly), copy of office order dated
25.09.2014 Ex.MW1/5 (colly), copy of receipts and account
statement Ex. MW1/6 (colly), copy of show cause and relieving
letter Ex.MW1/7, copy of letter written by Trilok Chand dated
16.09.2013 Ex. MW1/8, copy of letter dated 17.09.2013 written by
LID No. 583/2019 Page 31 of 55
Trilok Chand Ex.MW1/9, copy of the rejoinder before the office of
Labour Commissioner mark X1 (colly), copy of document dated
28.05.2014 Ex. MW1/10 (colly), copy of document dated
30.10.1984 Ex. MW1/11, copy of document dated 18.12.1984 Ex.
MW1/12, copy of document dated 22.03.1985 Ex. MW1/13, copy
of document dated 07.07.1987 Ex. MW1/14, copy of document
dated 31.05.1991 Ex. MW1/15, copy of document dated
19.02.1997 Ex. MW1/16, copy of document dated 08.12.1997 Ex.
MW1/17, copy of document dated 13.11.2002 Ex. MW1/18, copy
of document dated 07.09.2011 Ex. MW1/19 and copy of document
dated 03.04.2012 Ex. MW1/20.
84. He was cross examined by Authorized Representative for the
claimant.
85. During his cross examination this witness has denied that no
additional benefits were being given to the claimant and deposed
that the management used to give wages to the claimant as per
Majithia Wage Board. He has denied that no additional benefit to
the claimant was ever given by the management. He has denied
that an application under Section 17 (1) of the Working Journalist
Act regarding the payment of arrears of the claimant is still
pending in the Labour Office. He has denied that he has spoken lie
to this effect or that the said application is still pending in the
Labour Office. He has voluntarily deposed that after consulting his
dairy, he could tell the date on which, the said application was
closed in the Labour Office. The witness was allowed to consult
his dairy to tell the date. He has deposed that he could not bring his
dairy for the year 2020 and he has brought the dairy of the year
2021 and the entry regarding the closing of the said application of
LID No. 583/2019 Page 32 of 55
the workman in the Labour Office is mentioned in his dairy of the
year 2020. He has denied that he is deliberately telling the wrong
facts regarding the closing of the said application. He has deposed
that he can produce the dairy of year 2020 on the next date of
hearing. He has deposed that about 100-150 persons, out of 800
were working in the printing plants, site no.4 of the management at
Sahibabad on contract basis.
86. He has also deposed that the ISO Certificate was given to the
management regarding the complete premises of printing plant,
Site no.4 Sahibabad. He has denied that he has deposed falsely to
this effect. He has deposed that there is no separate rules were
framed for the printing plants in Site No.4 at Sahibabad regarding
the overtime and leave. He has denied that the distance between
the residence of the workman from Bihari Colony to Bahadurshah
Zafar Marg, Delhi is of 4 kms. He has voluntarily deposed that it
may be distance of 12-13 kms. He has deposed that he does not
know whether the vehicle, wherein, the claimant used to go at
Sahibabad Plant of the management, used to go from Bahadurshah
Zafar Office of the management.
87. He has denied that the workman used to come in the office of
the management at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi daily and
thereafter, he used to go in the printing plant of the management at
Sahibabad.
88. He has deposed that all the persons named in Ex.MW1/3 were
transferred from Delhi to Sahibabad on different dates and years.
He has denied that Ex.MW1/3 is a fabricated document or that
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., Sahibabad is written thereon
afterward. He has admitted that the claimant has no role to play in
LID No. 583/2019 Page 33 of 55
preparing Ex.MW1/3, it is prepared by the management. He has
admitted that Ex.MW1/3 does not contain the name of Sh. Sujit
Patnaik. He has voluntarily deposed that Ex.MW1/3 is relating to
the workers only and Sh. Sujit Patnaik is the Manager. He has
admitted it to be correct that Sh. Sujit Patnaik used to mark his
attendance.
89. He has deposed that Sh. Sujit Patnaik does mark his attendance
in any register. The procedure of his attendance is online.
90. He has admitted that the record of marking of attendance online
by Sh. Sujit Patnaik is maintained by the management.
91. When, this witness was asked as to whether, he could produce
the record of marking of attendance online by Sh. Sujit Patnaik at
the time of his joining at Sahibabad? He has deposed that he could
reply to this question only after consulting from Information &
Technology Department of the management. He was further asked
that whether he could produce the record of marking of attendance
online by Sh. Sujit Patnaik for the period of which Ex.MW1/3 is
produce by the management? He has deposed that he could reply
to this question also only after consulting from Information &
Technology Department of the management. He has denied that all
the directions of orders were not issued by the management from
Delhi and voluntarily deposed that the directions regarding duty
timings, attendance, leave, uniforms etc. were issued from
Sahibabad Office.
92. He has also deposed that he could not produce the document
relating to the year 2008 and he could produce the record only for
3 years prior to the date, on which, he was cross examined in the
LID No. 583/2019 Page 34 of 55
court, because long term record is not maintained by the
management.
93. He has denied that no order to the claimant was ever issued by
the management from it's office of Sahibabad. He has denied that
the claimant used to work under the supervision of the office of the
management at New Delhi. He has denied that the claimant has
filed the present case in the court on the basis of the document
Ex.MW1/5. He has denied that the services of the claimant had
been terminated by the management with the malafide intention to
deprive him from the benefits under the Majithia Wage Board and
not on the ground of his ill health. He has voluntarily deposed that
the claimant has been relieved from his service on the ground of
his ill health. He has denied that the service of the claimant have
been terminated by the management. He has admitted that no
enquiry was conducted by the management after serving of show
cause notice to the claimant on dated 16.09.2013. He has denied
that the management had forced to the claimant to sign Ex.MW1/8
after putting him under the threat. He has admitted that the
claimant had withdrawn his application for VRS vide Ex.MW1/9.
He has denied that the claimant used to complain to the
management regarding the pollution in the printing plant of the
management at Sahibabad. He has voluntarily deposed that there
was no pollution in the said plant of the management. He has
denied that the health of the claimant deteriorated in view of the
pollution in the printing plant of the management at Sahibabad. He
has denied that the claimant was religious, pious and teetotaler or
that he had never consumed any liquor as alleged by the
management.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 35 of 55
94. Thereafter, this witness had brought a notice Ex.MW1/21
received from Deputy Labour Commissioner, Pusa, which was
received by the management for 17.03.2021 regarding the case
bearing WJA/CD/04/19/1178, which was earlier disposed off on
dated 14.12.2020.
95. He has also brought the photocopy of record of attendance
Ex.MW1/22 of Sh. Sujit Patnayak, Senior Manager of the
management for the period w.e.f. 11.09.2008 to 31.12.2008. As per
the said record, Sh. Sujit Patnayak had joined the management on
03.09.2008 and he had put his signatures on each page thereof.
96. He has admitted it to be correct that the copy of the document
Ex.MW1/22 does not bear the name of any person to whom, it
belongs nor it bear the name of any management. He has
voluntarily deposed that this is a record of online attendance and
it's print out is taken as per employee code and employee code of
Sh. Sujit Patnayak is 10021280 as mentioned in first column of
Ex.MW1/22. He has deposed that Mr. Sujit Patnayak did not mark
his attendance since, 03.09.2008 and he started marking his
attendance w.e.f. 11.09.2008 and dated 11.09.2008 is mentioned in
column 2 of Ex.MW1/22.
97. He has denied that Ex.MW1/22 is forged document. He has
admitted it to be correct that Ex.MW1/22 is not authenticated by
any competent official of the management. He has deposed that he
has signed on each page thereof in this court. He has deposed that
he has already been retired from the management and he is still
working as Consultant of the management. He has admitted it to
LID No. 583/2019 Page 36 of 55
be correct that he has not placed on record any document to show
that he has been reemployed as consultant after his retirement in
the management. He has voluntarily deposed that he could produce
the document, vide which, he has been re-employed by the
management as consultant, after his retirement.
98. He has admitted it to be correct that after his retirement, the
management did not execute any document, vide which, he may be
authorized by the management to depose on behalf of the
management in the present case. He has voluntarily deposed that
he could produce such document. He has deposed that he was
retired from the management on dated 31.05.2019. He has denied
that he is not competent to depose on behalf of the management in
the present case.
99. He has denied that the claimant has never told to the
management that he was not willing to do job in the management,
in view of his ill health. He has admitted it to correct that the
claimant had never made any request to the management to give
light work to him, on account of his illness. He has denied that the
management had harassed to the claimant to avoid the making of
payment, as per Majithia Wage Board. He has voluntarily deposed
that the claimant has already been paid the benefits, as per
Majithia Wage Board. He has denied that the claimant has never
been relieved by the management on the ground of his ill health.
100. He has denied that the management had never made payment to
the claimant, as per Majithia Wage Board. He has voluntarily
deposed that the receipt regarding such payment has already been
LID No. 583/2019 Page 37 of 55
filed by the management, which is already Ex.MW1/6. He has
admitted it to be correct that an application under Section 17(1) of
Working Journalist Act is still pending before the authority under
the Working Journalist Act at Pusa Road, New Delhi.
101. He has denied that the alleged full and final amount mentioned
in Ex.MW1/6 was prepared in Delhi or that payment thereof was
also made at Delhi to the claimant. He has voluntarily deposed that
the amount mentioned in the Ex.MW1/6 was fixed at Bombay
(Head Office of the management) and the payment thereof was
also made online from Bombay to the claimant. He has again said
that the Registered Office of the management is situated at
Bombay. He has denied that the alleged amount as mentioned in
Ex.MW1/6 was not prepared at Bombay or that the payment
thereof was made to the claimant at Delhi.
102. When, this witness was asked as to whether he was having any
proof that Ex.MW1/6 was prepared at Bombay, then, he has
deposed that the address of the Registered Office of the
management at Bombay is mentioned on the Ex.MW1/6 at point
A, which shows that it was prepared at Bombay.
103. When, this witness was asked as to whether he was having any
proof that the payment of the alleged amount as mentioned in
Ex.MW1/6 was released from Bombay, then, he has deposed that
Ex.MW1/6 is the only proof thereof.
104. He has denied that the monthly payslip of the claimant was
issued from Delhi's office.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 38 of 55
105. When, this witness was asked, as to whether is it correct that the
payslip of the claimant contains the address of the management as
BCCL Delhi. He had replied that he could tell about the same only
after going through the payslip. He has deposed that he may be
given time to produce the same.
106. He has denied that the account branch of the management is
situated at Delhi. He has voluntarily deposed that it is situated at
Bombay. He has denied that Mark X1 was never filed by the
claimant in the office of the Labour Commissioner or that the same
is fabricated by the management.
107. He has denied that the claimant has never voluntarily applied
for VRS or that management had compelled to claimant to make
application for VRS under threat and coercion.
108. When, this witness was asked, as to whether is it correct that the
photocopy of document Mark S and also Ex.WW1/M1 is a
genuine document. He has deposed that he could tell about the
genuineness of this document only after seeing the original thereof
and after seeing the same document again, this witness has
admitted that Mark S (and also Ex.WW1/M1) is a genuine
document.
109. When, this witness was asked, as to whether did he bring the
salary slips of the workman since 2008 to 2013. He has deposed
that he could not produce the salary slips of the claimant for the
LID No. 583/2019 Page 39 of 55
said period. He has voluntarily deposed that he has brought
authority letter Ex. MW1/23 dated 01.07.2019 and another
authority letter Ex. MW1/24 dated 17.03.2021.
110. He has deposed that the management never keeps the record of
pay slip of it's any employee. He has voluntarily deposed that the
payslip is given to the employee every month. He has denied that
the management retains the record of pay slips of it's employee or
that he has deliberately not brought the record of the payslips of
the claimant.
111. When, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimant had
shown the computer generated payslip for the months of
December, 2011 and November, 2012 to the witness, then, this
witness has admitted that these are the payslips of the claimant
issued to the claimant by the management and same were
Ex.MW1/W1 and Ex.MW1/W2 respectively.
112. He has admitted it to be correct that on these two payslips
Branch Delhi-BCCL is mentioned at points A. He has voluntarily
deposed that Location Sahibabad is also mentioned in these
payslips at points B. He has denied that the payslips of the
employees of the management are not prepared at Bombay.
113. He has denied that the management had never issued any
authority letter in his favour between 31.05.2019 to 17.03.2021.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 40 of 55
114. This witness has denied that Ex.MW1/23 and Ex.MW1/24 were
prepared after 09.03.2021 or that Ex.MW1/24 was prepared that
too on 17.03.2021.
115. When, this witness was asked that as to whether is it correct that
Ex.MW1/23 does not bear any address of Branch Office, Head
Office or Registered Office of the management, then, this witness
had replied that this is an internal office memo and it is generated
in the manner, as mentioned in Ex.MW1/23.
116. He has admitted it to be correct that Ex.MW1/23 is not
prepared on the letter head of the company. He has denied that the
Ex.MW1/23 is false and fabricated document or that for the same
reason, it differs from Ex.MW1/24. He has voluntarily deposed
that Ex.MW1/24 is prepared on the letter head of the management.
He has deposed that the documents, which are required to be sent
out of the company are generally prepared on the letter head of the
management, whereas, the documents, which are retained in the
management are not prepared on the letter head.
117. He has deposed that there is procedure of giving any letter
number in the management. He has denied that he has deposed
falsely that there is no procedure of giving any letter number in the
management. He has also denied that Sh. Ashok Srivastav, General
Manager (Personnel) is not competent to execute such letter of
authority Ex.MW1/23 and Ex.MW1/24. He has voluntarily
deposed that Sh. Ashok Srivastav has been authorized by Director
HR of the management and Director HR of the management has
LID No. 583/2019 Page 41 of 55
been authorized by the Board of Directors of the management and
he could produce the resolution.
118. He has deposed that he does not know whether the minutes of
meeting of Board of Directors of the management are maintained
by the office of the management at Bombay or not.
119. He has denied that the management has given him contract of
running canteens in the premises of the management at Delhi and
Sahibabad or that for the same reason, he has come to depose in
favour of the management.
120. When, this witness was asked that is it correct that Ex.MW1/10
was given to the management by the wife of the claimant and the
claimant has nothing to do with the same. He has admitted it to be
correct that the wife of the claimant had given this document
Ex.MW1/10 to the management, but, he has denied that the
claimant has nothing to do with the same. He has denied that he
was deliberately speaking lie.
121. When, this witness was asked that as to whether is it correct
whenever any communication is issued to an employee, the
management gets signatures on the documents as it's proof. He has
deposed that sometimes, the receiving was received on messenger
book and sometimes such receiving was received on letter.
122. When, this witness was asked that is it correct that Ex.MW1/11
to Ex.MW1/16 do not bear the signatures of the claimant thereon,
then, he has deposed that Ex.MW1/11 was received on the
LID No. 583/2019 Page 42 of 55
acknowledgement book, so, the signature of the claimant is there
at point A on page of Ex.MW1/11.
123. When, this witness was asked that as to whether is it correct
that Ex.MW1/11 is the photocopy of two documents, then, he had
admitted that Ex.MW1/11 is the photocopy of two documents.
124. He has denied that the acknowledgement at the top of page of
Ex.MW1/11 is not relating to Ex.MW1/11. He has admitted it to
be correct that the dates in acknowledgement book is mentioned as
09.11.1984 and on the same page of Ex.MW1/11, October 30,
1984. He has voluntarily deposed that the document Ex.MW1/11
was issued on 09.11.1984, so, on the bottom of this document
dated 09.11 is mentioned. He has denied that Ex.MW1/11 was
never issued to the claimant.
125. He has denied that Ex.MW1/12 was never issued to the
claimant or that on the top of this document Ex.MW1/12, the copy
of acknowledgement book does not bear the signature of the
claimant.
126. He has admitted it to be correct that on the first page of
Ex.MW1/13 (colly), no signatures of the claimant were there. He
has voluntarily deposed that but, at page No.2 of Ex.MW1/13
(colly) at point A, the signature of claimant is there. He has denied
that Ex.MW1/13 was never issued to the claimant or that the
signature of the claimant on page No.2 of Ex.MW1/13 (colly) is
forged.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 43 of 55
127. He has admitted it to be correct that on the first page of
Ex.MW1/14 (colly), no signatures of the claimant were there. He
has voluntarily deposed that but, at page No.3 of Ex.MW1/14
(colly) at point A, the signature of claimant is there. He has denied
that Ex.MW1/14 was never issued to the claimant or that the
signature of the claimant on page No.3 of Ex.MW1/14 (colly) is
forged.
128. He has denied that Ex.MW1/15 was never issued to the
claimant or that on the Peon Book, the signature of the claimant is
forged at point A.
129. He has denied that Ex.MW1/16 (colly) was never issued to the
claimant or that signatures of the claimant are forged thereon.
130. He has also denied that Ex.MW1/17 was never issued to the
claimant or that signature of the claimant thereon is forged and
fabricated.
131. He has also denied that the claimant was never given any
warning letter or memo prior to the termination of his services by
the management. He has voluntarily deposed that claimant was
relieved. He has denied that Ex.MW1/19 is false and fabricated
document or that it was never issued to the claimant. He has also
denied that Ex.MW1/20 is forged and fabricated document. He has
also denied that he has filed false affidavit or that he has deposed
falsely, then, he had sought time to produce certified copy of
Resolution and thereafter, this witness had produced the copy of
resolution dated 10.06.2016 and copy of letter of authority dated
LID No. 583/2019 Page 44 of 55
23.06.2016 Ex. MW1/25 (colly). He has denied that there is no
resolution regarding the letter of authority at page no. 5 of Ex.
MW1/25 (colly). He has voluntarily deposed that the resolution at
page no.3 of Ex. MW1/25 (colly) is regarding the same letter of
authority. He has admitted it to be correct that at page no.3 of Ex.
MW1/25 (colly), this is the resolution of committee and not of
board. He has also admitted it to be correct that this resolution,
which is part of Ex.MW1/25 is not in favour of Sh. Ashok
Srivastav. He has denied that this resolution is not in favour of Sh.
Amit Dass or that this is not resolution.
132. He has admitted it to be correct that at page no.5 of
Ex.MW1/25, it is no where mentioned that he has been authorized
by the management.
133. He has denied that he has never been authorized by the
management to depose on it's behalf in the present case. He has
voluntarily deposed that he has already placed on record
Ex.MW1/23 and Ex.MW1/24 regarding the same. He has denied
that Ex.MW1/25 (colly) are forged and fabricated documents. He
has deposed that he was born on 8th May, 1961 and he got retired at
the age of 58 year. He has denied that the age of superannuation in
the management is 60 years.
134. The claimant has averred in para No.1 of his statement of claim
that he was serving in the management since 24.08.1988 and lastly
posted at Printing Plant of the management at 15/A, Sahibababd,
Ghaziabad, UP and in para No.2 of his statement of claim, he has
LID No. 583/2019 Page 45 of 55
averred that on dated 17.10.2013 his services were terminated by
the management.
135. The claimant has admitted in his statement of claim that he was
lastly posted at Sahibabad and the management has taken the plea
that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the present matter.
Issue No.1
136. The management has disputed the territorial jurisdiction of this
court to adjudicate upon the present matter, so, the burden of
proving the issue no.1 was kept on the management.
137. In order to discharge the burden of proving issue No.1, the
management has examined Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma as MW1
vide his affidavit Ex.MW1/A. He has deposed on the similar line
of the written statement of the management. Since, this witness of
the management has testified that this claimant was transferred to
the printing plant of the management at Sahibabad on 1 st of May,
2008 and he continued to work at there till his relieving on
17.10.2013. Even during his cross examination, this witness had
denied that the claimant used to come in the office of the
management At Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, daily and
thereafter, he used to go in the Printing Plant of the management at
Sahibabad. Thus, the testimony of this MW1 remained
unimpeached and in order to fortify the plea of the management,
the management has also filed the photocopy of transfer letter
dated 25.04.2008 Ex.MW1/2 and show cause notice and relieving
letter dated 16.09.2013 Ex.MW1/7. Neither Ex.MW1/2 nor
Ex.MW1/7 are disputed.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 46 of 55
138. No doubt the claimant in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A has deposed
that he had to report for duty at New Delhi office, from where, he
was taken in the bus of the company at the place of his work at
Sahibabad. He has also deposed that the supervision and control of
the claimant was from Delhi. But, such testimony of the claimant
is found to be beyond of pleading as claimant has nowhere
mentioned the same in his statement of claim. So, such testimony
of the claimant, which is beyond of the pleading, cannot be looked
into.
139. The claimant has admitted in his cross examination that he was
transferred in the printing plant of the management at 15/A,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP in the year 2008. He has also admitted
that he remained posted at Sahibabad for about 5 years and his last
posting was also at Sahibabad and he used to mark his attendance
at Sahibabad through punching. He has also admitted that his leave
was sanctioned by the Personnel Manager at Sahibabad and his
overtime was also sanctioned by the Personnel Manager at
Sahibababd. Thus, the claimant was working under the supervision
control of the Personnel Manager of the management at
Sahibabad.
140. Ld. Authorized Representative for the management has argued
that claimant was transferred at Sahibabad in the year 2008 and his
service had come to an end at Sahibabad, as he has lastly worked
at Sahibabad and hence only Ghaziabad Court has jurisdiction to
decide the present case, on merit.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 47 of 55
141. Since, the lordship of High Court of Delhi in case M/s. Lohia
Starlinger Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2006
Lab. I.C. 3462, was pleased to hold as under:-
"49... In this case, the full Bench held that the situs of the workman's
employment in the case of termination of his services patently the
paramount factor, if not being wholly conclusive. It is within the area of
employment that the order of termination operates and the workman losses
his right to hold the post and receive wages, therefore, the full bench held
that on the anvil of the principle of where the impunged order operates, the
situs of the employment of the workman is patently significant."
and further held ....
"51... In the instant case, the nexus between the Industrial Disputes and
the territory of the respondent No.1 is not satisfied and the respondent no.1
would be appropriate Government to exercise jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the complaint made by respondent No.3. I, therefore, hold that the respondent no.1 was not competent to make the order of reference dated 01.04.2002. The petitioner stood transferred to Kanpur, the order of termination of her services at Kanpur was effected after holding disciplinary proceedings at Kanpur. It would be the authorities at Kanpur, who would have the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, if at all made by the respondent No.3. Accordingly, the order dated 01.04.2002 is quashed. Consequently, thereupon the proceedings arising there from is also incompetent and his hereby quashed."
142. Similarly, in case Paritosh Kumar Pal Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1984 Lab.I.C. 1254, the Lordship of High Court of Patna was pleased to hold as under:-
"14...Consequently, the situs of the workman's employment in the case of the termination of his services is patently a paramount factor if not being wholly conclusive. It is within the area of employment that the order of termination operates and the workman ceases to be workman and loses his right to hold the post and receive wages therefor. Therefore, on the anvil of the principle of where the impugned order operates the situs of employment of the workman is patently significant. Can it possibly be said that the order of termination of a workman does not operate within the area of his employment? The answer, therefore, has to be in favour of the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place of work of the situs of employment."
"16... It is axiomatic that the territory within which the services of an employee are wrongfully terminated would be the territory where the cause of action substantially arises and in a case if not wholly but a part of the cause of action so arises. On this acid test also the situs of employment of LID No. 583/2019 Page 48 of 55 the workman would forthwith give jurisdiction to the Civil Courts and a fortiori to the Tribunals and the Labour Courts under the Act."
143. Similarly, the Lordship of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case Shri Shailender Kumar Vs. Secretary (Labour) and Anr. WPC No.1113/15, decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.10.15, was pleased to observe as under:-
"In M. Vadivelu (supra), the Labour Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming all arrears of salary and other allowances. The claim was contested by the respondent and one of the grounds of challenge was that the Labour Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application as the petitioner was not employed by respondent no.1 at Delhi but was working with its establishment at Dadri, Uttar Pradesh. It was further contended that the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as he was performing supervisory function and as such, was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court framed preliminary issue as to whether the court could adjudicate the issue about status of the claimant as a workman under Section 33C(2) of the Act and whether the Labour Courts at Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application of the petitioner was dismissed on holding that the status of the petitioner as a workman was disputed one and Labour Court dealing with the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue relating to the status of the applicant as a workman. Further, neither any cause of action had arisen in Delhi nor did the petitioner worked in Delhi and, therefore, the Labour Courts at Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the writ petition was filed. It was held that the courts exercising jurisdiction over territories where cause of action had arisen, alone would have the jurisdiction to entertain applications/ petitions/complaints under the Act. Since in that case, the application under Section 33C(2) emanates from the employment of the petitioner at Dadri, U.P, the cause of action, obviously, also arise in U.P. The cause of action in such cases is inextricably linked with the situs of employment. The situs of an office of the employer does not give rise to a cause of action within that territory. By relying upon the decisions rendered in D.L.F Universal Ltd. (supra), B. B. Verma vs. National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. 80 (1990) DLT 498, Patel Roadways Ltd. vs. Tropical Agro Systems Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1992 SC 1514, it was held that merely because the respondents have an office in Delhi would not enable the Labour Court of Delhi to exercise jurisdiction in the matter.
Reverting to the case in hand, as per the claim petition itself, though the petitioner was initially appointed by M/s Khanna Engineering Corporation LID No. 583/2019 Page 49 of 55 on 20.07.2000 and was made to work at Delhi, but as per his own case the management closed its factory at the said address and started new firm by the name of M/s Ashoka Gears and shifted to Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P where he worked till 2006. Thus, the situs of the employment was in Noida and not at Delhi. The termination also took place at Noida which is the cause for petitioner raising the dispute and consequently seeking reference. The notice of demand was also sent by him at the address of management at Noida, U.P. The situs of the employment of the petitionerworkman at the time of termination of his services was at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, thus, the subject matter of the dispute substantially arose in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, as the immediate occasion which resulted in the alleged infraction of the rights of the petitioner workman occurred in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Courts in Delhi cannot be vested with territorial jurisdiction on the allegations that the initial appointment of the petitioner was at Delhi or that PF etc. was being deposited in Delhi or even the head office of the management is at Delhi. The decision rendered in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh was duly considered and dealt with in Braham Parkash (supra).
144. Since their Lordship of High Court of Delhi in case Braham Prakash vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 2008(2) SLJ 96 Delhi was pleased to hold that:
"Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, undoubtedly, the situs of the employment of the petitioner workman at the time of termination of his services was at Neemrana, Rajasthan. Thus, the subject matter of the dispute substantially arose in the State of Rajasthan. Consequently, it has to be held that as the immediate occasion which resulted in the alleged infraction of the rights of the petitioner workman occurred in the State of Rajasthan, the Courts in Delhi cannot be vested with territorial jurisdiction on the allegation that the head office of the respondent management is in Delhi or that the PF etc. was being deposited in Delhi or even that the Directors of the respondent management are residing in Delhi. In other words, by sifting out the extraneous factors on which the petitioner workman sought to place emphasis, there is only one conclusion that can be arrived at, which is that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, with cause of action which constituted an infringement of the rights of the petitioner workman arose at Rajasthan where he was lastly employed."
145. Their Lordship of High Court of Delhi in case Dharambir Singh vs M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. And Ors., LPA 590/2009 had observed as under:-
"6. Supreme Court in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh (supra) applying the principles laid under Section 20 CPC held that the State Government of the LID No. 583/2019 Page 50 of 55 State where part of cause of action arose would also have jurisdiction to make a reference. The Supreme Court laid down the following principles to determine the jurisdiction:-
"The principles for determining jurisdiction are:
Where does the order of the termination of service operate? Is there some nexus between the industrial dispute arising from termination of the services of the workman and the territory of the State?
The well-known test of jurisdiction of a civil court including the residence of the parties and the subject-matter of the dispute substantially arising therein would be applicable.
7. Supreme Court thus held that the situs of the employment of the workman would be a relevant factor for determining the jurisdiction of the Labour Court concerned. In the said case before the Supreme Court the termination orders which were served at Calcutta were not the only bone of contention but the transfer orders as well because the termination orders were passed for not obeying the transfer orders. It was held that if the transfer orders were set aside the appellants therein would be deemed to be posted in Calcutta. There being a direct nexus with the termination of their services at Calcutta it was held that State of West Bengal was the appropriate Government.
8. In the facts of the case, reliance of learned Counsel for Dharambir on Bikash Bhushan Ghosh (supra) is thus misconceived for the reason that in the said case after transfer, the workmen therein did not join at the transferred place and had challenged the transfer orders and the termination for non-complying with the orders of transfer. Thus, termination was a consequence of non-obeying the order of transfer.
9. In the present case the services of Dharambir were terminated much after he was transferred to Faridabad though he had challenged the transfer order and the said writ petition was pending, however the termination was not on account of non-obeying the transfer order or a consequence of transfer.
10. In 1984 Lab IC 1254 (Patna) (FB) Paritosh Kumar Pal Vs. State of Bihar the Full Bench of Patna High Court held-
"13. Now an incisive analysis of the aforesaid authoritative enunciation of law would indicate that three clear-cut principles or tests for determining jurisdiction emerge, therefrom. For clarity these may be first separately enumerated as under:
Where does the order of the termination of services operate? Is there some nexus between the industrial dispute arising from termination of the services of the workman and the territory of the State? That the well-known test of jurisdiction of a civil Court including the residence of the parties and the subject matter of the dispute substantially arising therein would be applicable."LID No. 583/2019 Page 51 of 55
11. This Court in 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10218 VG Jagdishan Vs. M/s Indofos Industries Ltd. & Anr. following the decision in 2008 (3) SCC 456 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee held that since the workman was posted at Ghaziabad and his services were terminated at Ghaziabad, the Labour Courts at Ghaziabad could only have jurisdiction to try the case and merely because the Corporate Office of management was at Delhi the same will not vest the Labour Court at Delhi with the territorial jurisdiction since substantial cause of action arose at Ghaziabad. It was noted-
"9. The issue in the present case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) wherein the workman was employed with Eastern Coalfields Limited in Mugma area in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkhand. His services were terminated at Mugma however, workman filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. On a preliminary objection taken the Calcutta High Court held that since the workman was serving at Mugma area under the General Manager of the area which is the State of Jharkhand, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Calcutta High Court held that entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within the State of Jharkhand and only because the head office of the company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court particularly when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the workman."
12. In view of the legal position noted above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.
13. Appeal is dismissed."
146. Coming to the case in hand, the claimant has failed to bring on record any documentary proof to show that after his transfer at Sahibabad in the year 2008, he had ever marked his presence in the office of the management at New Delhi. It is proved that the claimant was transferred at Printing Plant, 15/A, Sahibabad, Gaziababd, UP vide transfer letter dated 25.04.2008 Ex.MW1/2 and the claimant was relieved by the management vide letter dated 17.10.2013 Ex.MW1/7 (also Mark Y) from Sahibabad.
147. It is worthwhile to mention here that prior to the filing of the statement of claim in the court, the claimant had approached to LID No. 583/2019 Page 52 of 55 the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, New Delhi and the report of Inspecting officer of Central District, New Delhi Ex.MW1/5 reveals that the Inspecting officer had mentioned therein that this claimant was examined and it was found that this claimant at the time of his alleged illegal termination was posted at Printing Plant, 15/A, Sahibabad, UP on the post of Rotary Machineman in the Rotary Department. Therefore, this claimant was directed to file the case before the appropriate authority. But, despite of such report of the Inspecting officer, the claimant has filed the statement of claim in the court at Delhi. Whereas the appropriate authority was at Sahibabad (District Gaziababad, UP).
148. It is not disputed that the claimant was serving in the management at Printing Plant, 15/A, Sahibabad, Gaziababad, UP since the day, he had joined his duties at there in the year 2008 and he continued to work at there till he is relieved by the management in the year 2013. Thus, the last place of the employment of the claimant was at Sahibabad and the claimant was relieved by the management at Sahibabad, thus, the service of the claimant had come to an end at Sahibabad. From the law discussed in the abovesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that the situs of the employment of the workman, in case of termination of service is patently paramount factor and in the case in hand, the situs of employment of the claimant since 2008 till passing of the relieving order dated 17.10.2013 Ex.MW1/7 (and also Mark Y) was at Sahibabad. So, even if, the relieving order dated 17.10.2013 is issued from the office of the management at New Delhi, it is inconsequential, because the said relieving order operated at LID No. 583/2019 Page 53 of 55 Sahibabad, as the claimant has lost his right to hold the job at Sahibabad.
149. Therefore, in the light of the law discussed in the above said judgments, this court has come to the conclusion that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case and in view of dissimilarities of facts and circumstances of the present, the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the claimant on the point of territorial jurisdiction are not applicable to the case in hand, therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
150. Since, this court has come to the conclusion that this court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter, therefore, this court cannot give any finding, on merit, on the issue No.2 and issue no.3. As it is settled principle of law that any order passed on merit, by a court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter is non-est, so, this court is restraining itself from giving any findings on issue no.2 and issue no.3.
151. In view of finding of this court on issue no.1 against the claimant, the statement of claim in original alongwith all the documents relied upon by the claimant are ordered to be returned to the claimant, on filing of complete certified copies thereof by the claimant, so that the claimant may file the same before the appropriate Authority/forum having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter.
LID No. 583/2019 Page 54 of 55152. An attested copy of the award be sent to the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication, as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room, as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
Dictated & Announced through Video Conference using Cisco Webex On dated 18.09.2021 (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO) (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-2 ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS:
NEW DELHI LID No. 583/2019 Page 55 of 55