Delhi District Court
Sh. Enamul Haque vs M/S. Delhi Jal Board on 16 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
PILOT COURT / POLCXVII, ROOM NO. 514 :
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR No.10/18
In the matter of :
Sh. Enamul Haque
S/o Sh. Noor Mohammad Khan, Age 35 years,
Aadhar Card No.8751 8684 2515, Mobile No.9540796236,
C/o Delhi Pradesh Kamgar Ekta Sangh (Regd.),
Plot No.1, Gali No.2, Dabri Gaon,
New Delhi110045.
............. Workman
Versus
1.M/s. Delhi Jal Board 15, Dargah Gulli Road, Block A, Mukherjee Market Jhandewalan, New Delhi110005
2. M/s. Engineers India Limited, 1, Bhikaji Cama Place, Near Hyatt Hotel, New Delhi110066.
3. M/s. Pratibha Industries Limited, B85, Bhisham Pitahmah Marg, Defence Colony, New Delhi110024.
.................. Managements
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.12.2017
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 06.03.2018
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 16.03.2018
A W A R D :
1. Vide Order No. F.24(193)/17/Ref./CD/Lab./1007 dated LIR No.10/18 Page 1 of 23 29.11.2017, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi, a reference was sent to this court with the following terms: "Whether services of the workmen as per Annexure 'A' have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Claimant's case is that he had started working with management no. 1 through management no. 3 as Rigerman w.e.f 29.12.2012 at the last salary of Rs.14,490/. In order to get its work executed, the management no. 1 had given contract to management no. 2, which in turn, had subcontracted to management no. 3. He never gave any chance to complaint to any of the management as his work was satisfactory. The managements did not provide him and coemployees any legal facility like attendance card, ESI, PF, Bonus, CL, EL and ML for which they were demanding orally since long. Due to persistent demand, the management no. 3 withheld their earned wages for May, June, July, August2016 on the excuse that management nos. 1 & 2 had not released fund and as soon as the money was released, earned wages would be paid. They had approached management nos. 1 & 2 also for earned wages but no heed was paid. They were feeling heat due to withholding of earned wages and hence, they told managements that they would complain to labour department and Chief Minister. Due to that reason, their LIR No.10/18 Page 2 of 23 services were terminated on 21.09.2016 illegally without notice and tendering notice pay and compensation and without chargesheet and domestic enquiry. They approached managements several times for reinstatement but they were not taken on duty. They made a complaint to labour office, Pusa Road, New Delhi on 29.09.2016 through Union where earned wages were paid but reinstatement was denied. Joint demand notice dated 19.12.2016 went unreplied. At last, they filed case before Conciliation Officer where managements refused to take them back on duty. They are jobless since termination of service.
3. Written statement of management no. 1 is to the effect that it is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It had hired the Project Management Consultancy Services from management no. 2 which is a Govt. Organization. It had entered into agreement with it on 28.01.2008 for laying of interceptor sewers alongwith three major drains (Shahdra, Supplementary and Najafgarh) for abatement of pollution etc. The management no. 2 had further heired service of a contractor i.e. management no. 3 who engaged the claimant for that project. As per the terms and conditions of agreement between it and management no. 2, responsibility for completing the project and hiring the service of contractors was on management no. 2 and thus, the management no. 2 & 3, being the LIR No.10/18 Page 3 of 23 project management Consultancy Contractor and construction respectively are responsible for the liability, if any. There is no relationship of employer and the employee between it and the claimant. He has not approached the court with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts that he was engaged by management no. 3 and was paid salary and given other facilities like ESI and PF by management no.3. His work was controlled and manged by management no.3. He was deployed in its premises by management no. 3 on the asking of management no. 2 on temporary basis under a contract. Full administrative and supervisory control was exercised over him by management no. 3.
4. It is mentioned in the WS of management no. 2 that it is a public sector undertaking under the administrative control of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas and is basically a consultant in the field of Hydrocarbon, non ferrous metallurgy and infrastructure etc. Its core activity is to provide consultancy services in the field of engineering, procurement and construction management to various clients. It executed an agreement with management no. 1 under which it had to provide management consultancy service including management and technical services in relation to the project of laying of interceptor sewers alongwith three major drains in Delhi. It had to engage construction contractor LIR No.10/18 Page 4 of 23 on behalf of management no. 1 to execute that work and to supervise the work of the contractor. Accordingly, it hired management no. 3 to complete the project on agreed time schedule and approved cost. As per the terms of the contract, it was required to engage construction contractor and to supervise the work of the contractor as per technical specifications and standard. Its role was that of an "Attorney" and "consultant". It was neither a contractor nor a principal employer. It had neither engaged / employed any worker nor had issued any form V to management no. 3. A tripartite agreement was executed among all three managements on 08.12.2011 for carrying out the work of laying of interceptor sewers. The work was to be executed by management no. 3 and they were responsible for payment of salary / wages to their workers. The Management no. 1 was to release funds progressively to the specifically designated project account (ESCROW account) and management no.2 was merely to certify the work of management no.3. Unless the funds were released by management no. 1, there cannot be any liability on its part to make payment to contractors. No lump sump contract was ever awarded to it and no lump sump payment was made to it. Its fee was limited to certain percentage of the total cost of the project. It was never principal employer at any point of time. The claimant was employed by management no. 3 and deployed in the premises of management LIR No.10/18 Page 5 of 23 no.1.
5. The management No. 3 did not file written statement.
6. Following issues were framed on 05.02.2018:
1. Whether termination of service of claimant by management No.3 on 21.09.16 is illegal and /or unjustifiable? OPW.
2. Relief.
7. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A mentioning all the facts stated in statement of claim. He relied upon following documents:
1. Ex.WW1/1 is the complaint filed by him against management before ALC dated 29.09.16 alongwith list of workmen.
2. Ex.WW1/2 is demand notice dated 19.12.16.
3. Ex.WW1/3, Ex.WW1/4, Ex.WW1/5 and Ex.WW1/6 are postal receipts.
4. Ex.WW1/7 is statement of claim filed before Conciliation Officer alongwith list of workmen.
5. Ex.WW1/8 is salary sheet for December, 2012.
6. Ex.WW1/9 is his I. Card issued by management No.3.
7. Ex.WW1/10 is payslip for July, 2015.
8. Management No. 1 examined its Executive Engineer (ISP) Mr. Deepak Kumar Srivastava as M1W1 who deposed that LIR No.10/18 Page 6 of 23 there was no relationship of employee and employer between claimant and management No.1. He was employed by management No.3 to whom the contract was awarded for miscellaneous work by management No.2. It had entered into contract with management No.2 for laying of interceptor sewers along three major drains in Delhi for abatement of pollution in Yamuna river. Generally, it enters into such type of contracts with management No.2. In turn, the management No.2 gives contract to other firms and in the present case, it was given to management No.3. The terms and conditions of project were fully laid down in agreement dated 28.01.2008. As per that agreement, it was management No.2 who was to appoint contractors to complete the project. Management No.2 subcontracted management No.3 and then management No.3 employed claimant. The claimant had not worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year immediately preceding to the termination of his service. No demand notice was ever served on it.
It had no role in appointment of management No.3 as contractor as it was appointed by management No.2 to execute the project. In fact, management No.1 is a large Navratna PublicSector undertaking of the Government of India. In case it employees any person, he is employed through proper channel after issuing appointment letter. It is beyond comprehension that it would not have issued appointment letter, wage slip and attendance card etc. LIR No.10/18 Page 7 of 23 to the claimant. Being a large body, it issues all statutory letters / cards to the persons appointed by it. As the claimant was never employed by it, his service cannot be terminated by it at any time.
9. Management No.2 examined its Deputy General Manager (Construction) Mr. Tarsham Raj Sharma as M2W1 who deposed that as per biparty agreement between management No.1 and 2 and tripartite agreement between all managements, it was management No.3 who was to lay sewers along side three major drains in Delhi for abatement of pollution in Yamuna. The management No.2 was to render consultancy services to management No.1 who was to release fund progressively to the specifically designated project account (escrow account) and management No.2 was to certify the works of management No.3. It was never principal employer of any person at any time.
Relationship:
10. Ld. AR for management No.1 argued that interceptor sewers were to be laid alongwith three major drains of Delhi in order to abate the pollution of Yamuna river. To execute that work, the management No.1 entered into agreement with management No.2 on 28.01.2008 vide which management No.2 was to provide management and technical services for infrastructure and to appoint a contractor. It appointed management No.3 as a contractor to LIR No.10/18 Page 8 of 23 execute the work consequent thereto tripartite agreement was executed between all three managements on 08.12.2011 to do that work in which it was specifically provided that the management No.3 would perform the work in all respects in a professional manner as per detailed scope of work. The claimant was appointed by management No.3 as its employee and was deputed to its site to lay interceptor sewers. The management No.1 was nowhere in picture in his employment. He was employee of management No.3.
Ld. AR for management No.2 argued that management No.2 is a public sector undertaking under the administrative control of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas and is basically a consultant in the field of Hydrocarbon, non ferrous metallurgy and infrastructure etc. Its core activity is to provide consultancy services in the field of engineering, procurement and construction management to various clients. In the case in hand, it had entered into agreement with management No.1 to provide such kind of service. It was required to engage construction contractor on behalf of management No.1 and was further required to supervise the work of contractor as per the technical specifications and standard. Subsequent thereto, it contracted the work to management No.3 who appointed claimant as its employee and deputed him to execute the work. He further submitted that salary was paid to claimant by management No.3 and PF & ESI were also deducted and deposited LIR No.10/18 Page 9 of 23 by management No.3. Control and supervision over his work was of management No.3. So, he was employee of management No.3.
Ld. AR for management No.3 admitted that claimant was employed by management No.3.
Ld. ARW also admitted that claimant was employed by management No.3 and he was deputed to the premises of management No.1 to execute the work. He submitted that claimant used to work on the site of management No.1 under the control and supervision of its officials / officers. Management No.1 has not placed on record any registration certificate issued by Labour Department authorizing it to engage contractor under Section 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The management No.3 has also not placed on record any license issued by Labour Department to the effect that it was authorized to engage claimant on contract basis under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. He submitted that the contract between management Nos.1 and 2 on one side and management No.3 on the other side, is sham and camouflage. In this regard, he relied upon Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana & Anr. 2006 LLR 170.
11. Following clauses of biparty agreement Ex.M1W1/1 dated 28.01.2008 between management Nos. 1 & 2, are relevant: LIR No.10/18 Page 10 of 23 "1. The first party is interalia engaged in discharging the functions of water supply, sewerage and sewerage disposal and drainage within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and is now desirous of 'Laying of Interceptor Sewer along three major drains (Najafgarh, Supplementary & Shahadra) in Delhi for abatement of pollution in Yamuna River (hereinafter referred to as PROJECT).
2. THE FIRST PARTY intends to have project Management Consultancy services for works relating to the abovementioned "PROJECT".
3. EIL is in the business of providing interalia management and technical services for infrastructure, intelligent building, and possesses experience, expertise and knowledge in the regard.
4. EIL agrees to perform such SERVICES and also agrees to engage construction contractors to perform work on behalf of THE FIRST PARTY and submitted proposal thereof, and after discussion THE FIRST PARTY and EIL have finally agreed to the terms and conditions for the performance to the said SERVICES as detailed herein.
5. THE FIRST PARTY also desires that EIL apart from rendering project Management Consultancy services arrange to execute contracts on behalf of THE FIRST PARTY, as an attorney through construction contractor(s) to perform the work in order to complete the PROJECT within an Agreed time schedule and approved cost."
For fee for management No.2, following is the clause mentioned on page No.21 of Ex.M1W1/1:
LIR No.10/18 Page 11 of 23"Section FC4 ................... Fee and agreement price In consideration of the SERVICES performed, by EIL, the FIRST PARTY shall pay fees as provided in Annexure II and as per the payment terms therein specified. The total amount payable by THE FIRST PARTY to EIL shall constitute the Contract price".
The management No.2 was to award work as per following clause appearing at page No.17 of Ex.M1W1/1: "1.5. Award of works shall be done as per following 1.5.1 Topographical, hydrological and Geotechnical investigations, Environment Impact Assessment Studies and other enabling works shall be undertaken by EIL or specialized contractors, as per requirements. However the cost of all studies and investigations shall form part of Cost of Project.
1.5.2 Inviting Tenders, evaluation of offers and recommendation for appointment of Execution contractors shall be performed by EIL in compliance with tendering procedure and in line with CVC guidelines".
12. In tripartite agreement Ex.M1W1/M2, the heading is that the agreement entered on 08.12.2011 between all three managements was for design and construction of interceptor sewers along Najafgarh, Supplementary and Shahdara drains for abatement of pollution in Yamuna River. Following clause of tripartite agreement are relevant: "2. Work to be performed: The Contractor shall LIR No.10/18 Page 12 of 23 faithfully perform the subject work in all respects in a professional manner as per detailed scope of work, scope of supply, various terms and conditions, Schedule of Rates / Schedule of lump sum prices Technical Specifications, Drawings, Standards etc. as defined in various sections of the Contract documents and as per the best industry practices as laid down by the Company.
3. Compensation: As full consideration for the satisfactory performance of this contract including fulfilling of all obligations and liabilities under this Contract by the contractor, the company shall compensate the Contractor in accordance with the prices set forth in the Schedule of Rates / Schedule of lump sum prices as per the payment provisions of this Contract up to 70% of the progress payments and such progress payments up to 70% shall be released to the Contractor by the Company on behalf of the Owner."
It is expressly understood by the Contractor that the balance 30% of the payment structured in accordance with Clause 3.3.6 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, Annexure V the Bidding Document shall be released to the Contractor from the deposits made by the Owner from their Revenue Receipts into the Escrow Account in advance. The Owner undertakes to make such deposits to ensure that there are no detaults regarding release of this component of the payments.
Notwithstanding anything contained herein above, the payments shall be released subject to the Contractor fulfilling his obligations as laid down in the contracts including those pertaining to O & M".
13. From biparty and tripartite agreements, it becomes LIR No.10/18 Page 13 of 23 clear that management No.2 had entered into agreement with management No.1 to provide management and technical services for infrastructure, intelligent building etc. and to engage construction contractors to perform work on its behalf and submit proposal thereof. The management No.2 was further authorized to execute contracts on its behalf as an Attorney through construction contractors. In lieu thereof, management No.1 was to pay fee as provided in Annexure II of Ex.M1W1/1 and the total amount payable by management No.1 was to constitute the contract price. As per clause No.1.5.2, the management No.2 invited tenders to evaluate offers and to recommend contractors for management No.1 in line with CVC guidelines. After execution of biparty contract, management Nos. 1 & 2 entered into contract with management No.3 for laying of interceptor sewers.
14. Ld. ARW could not pinpoint any wrong in both contracts. There is not an iota of truth in the submission of ARW that the contract was sham and camouflage. It is correct that as per Section 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the management No.1 was required to register itself for outsourcing the work. In turn, the management No.3 was also required, as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, to get license to engage claimant on contract basis. In Punjab State Electricity Board LIR No.10/18 Page 14 of 23 (Supra), facts were that the workman was electricity meter reader. The work was assigned to him by officers of the Board. He was required to perform functions in accordance with rules / instructions prevalent in the Board. He was required to perform functions to the satisfaction of SubDivisional Officer (OP) concerned and to carry out the work i.e. meter reading in the premises of various consumers on an authority conferred upon him by the Board. In the case in hand, the claimant used to work on the site of management No.1. He admitted in crossexamination that it was management No.3 who used to pay him salary and deduct PF and ESI contribution. It was the supervisor of management No. 3 who used to supervise his work. He admitted that he did not have any document to show that he was employee of management No.1. He admitted it correct that it was management No.3 who deputed him at the site of management No. 1 for work. In crossexamination by management No.2, he admitted that he had applied for job with management No.3. In crossexamination by management No. 3, he admitted that he was issued identity card by management No.3. His unpaid wages, he admitted, were paid by management No.3 before labour department. Such type of crossexamination is also proving the contention of management Nos. 1 & 2 that their contract with management No.3 was not sham and camouflage.
The claimant has placed on record his salary structure LIR No.10/18 Page 15 of 23 sheet as WW1/8. That sheet has been issued by management No.3. He was given payslip Ex.WW1/10 which was also issued by management No.3. To the same effect is his identity card Ex.WW1/9. Moreover, his own case in statement of claim and affidavit in evidence is that he was employed by management No.3 and was deputed in the premises of management No.1. He did not allege in statement of claim that the contract was sham and camouflage. So, it is held that tripartite agreement executed between all three managements is not sham and camouflage. It is a genuine contract. The claimant was employee of management No.3 and not of management Nos.1 & 2.
Issue No.1:
15. Ld. AR for management No.3 argued that claimant was appointed only for one year. He was made aware at the time of appointment that his employment was only for a particular project i.e. laying of interceptor sewers. After completion of that project, his service will not be renewed. He relied upon termination letter Ex.WW1/M1(3), filed in the connected case titled as Radhey Shyam Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors., to argue that case of the management is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and hence, termination of service of claimant is not retrenchment.
LIR No.10/18 Page 16 of 23On the other hand, ld. ARW argued that Ex.WW1/M1(3) is not bearing the signature of the claimant. That document was never issued to him. Moreover, copy of termination letter has not been filed by management. The management has not placed on record appointment letter / agreement / contract executed by it with claimant to the effect that he was appointed only for a fixed term or for a specific project. Moreover, the management No.3 has not filed written statement and did not lead evidence.
16. It is correct that it is mentioned in termination letter Ex.WW1/M1(3) (placed in connected case titled as Radhey Shyam Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors.) that coemployee Radhey Shyam's contract agreement with management No.3 was for one year and the project was reaching to the completion stage and hence, his service was no more required. Copy of termination letter has not been filed by management and so, it cannot be known whether such document was bearing the signature of the claimant or not. The management has not placed on record appointment letter / contract executed with him to the effect that he had been appointed only for one year or for a particular project. In Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2006 LLR 161, there was no pleading or evidence of the management that claimant was appointed for a specific period and termination of his service was on account of non renewal LIR No.10/18 Page 17 of 23 of contract. The Apex Court held that such plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal. It further held that service of the workman was terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act. In the case in hand also, the management No.3 did not file written statement. It did not lead any evidence. So, it can be said that there is no pleading and evidence on behalf of management No.3 to the effect that claimant was appointed only for one year and for a particular project. So, contention of AR for management No.3 that his case is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act is rejected.
It is the admitted position of all parties that no notice was given and no notice pay and retrenchment compensation were tendered to claimant by management No.3 before terminating his service. It is nobody's case that claimant was guilty of misconduct and hence, there was no scope of any chargesheet and domestic enquiry. By terminating service of the claimant in that manner, the management No. 3 has violated the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. This issue is decided in favour of claimant and against management No.3.
Issue No.2:
17. Ld. ARW argued that service of the claimant was terminated illegally and hence, management No.1 be directed to LIR No.10/18 Page 18 of 23 reinstate claimant and pay full back wages with continuity of service. He relied upon Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 saying that liability of management No.1 is vicarious one if the default is committed by the main employer i.e. management No.3.
Ld. AR for management No.1 argued that as per Section 21 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, vicarious liability of principal employer arises when the main employer defaults in payment of wages to its worker and that liability arises only during the employment of the worker. After his service is terminated and if award is passed in his favour, there is no such vicarious liability. Had so been the case, the Parliament would have specifically mentioned in Section 21 of the Act that the principal employer was bound to obey the award vicariously.
18. As per Sections 17, 18 & 19 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the main employer is required to provide rest rooms, first aid and other facilities to its workers. As per Section 20, if the main employer defaults, the principal employer shall provide those amenities and all expenses incurred by the principal employer in providing those amenities shall be recovered by principal employer from the contractor. The next Section is Section 21 which talks of responsibility for payment of LIR No.10/18 Page 19 of 23 wages. The prime responsibility for payment of wages is of the contractor. As per Section 21(4) of the Act, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment. Section 21 is appearing just after Section 17, 18, 19 and 20. That scheme of section shows that the provisions of Section 21 comes into play only when the contract worker is still working with principal employer. Moreover, if the parliament wanted to make principal employer vicariously liable for the award and decree of the court, it would have definitely specified in any of the Section that the principal employer would be bound to obey the decree or award of the court and to recover the decretal / awarded amount from the main employer. Such words are completely missing in Section 21 of the Act. So, neither management No.1 nor management No.2 can be made vicariously liable to make payment of the awarded amount.
19. Following was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Steal Authority of India and Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Other, 2001(91) FLR 182 (SC): " As analysis of the cases, discussed above shows that they fall in three classes; (i) Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is the work of an establishment and employment of contract LIR No.10/18 Page 20 of 23 labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the appropr4iate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered: (ii) where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer were held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining of canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of a contractor the Courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer."
It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. Their Workman and Anr. WP(C) No.14828/2006 decided on 19.02.2013 that perusal of decision of the Constitution Bench in Steal Authority of India and Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors, 2001(7) SCC 1 makes it amply clear that even where the work of an establishment is carried out by employment of contract labour prohibited because of the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour can be ordered.
LIR No.10/18 Page 21 of 2320. The management No.3 is in huge debt and it has been taken over by consortium of banks led by Bank of Baroda. Bank of Baroda, vide letter dated 20.12.2017, filed in the connected case titled as Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Vs. M/s. Delhi Jal Board & Ors., LIR No.3408/17, had given following information to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation: "We refer to the subject company which is enjoying various credit facilities from consortium of lenders led by Bank of Baroda. The company was under severe stress and accordingly Strategic Debt restructuring (SDR) was decided as a Corrective Action Plan under RBI circular via Circular DBR.BP.BC.No.101/21.04.132/201415 dated 08.06.2015. As a part of the SDR scheme, the lenders of Pratibha Industries Ltd. have acquired and hold the majority stake in the company, ie.. 58% stake as on date.
As per the guidelines the scheme was implemented such that the holdings of the company, held by the banks be divested in favour of a 'new promoter', thus enabling change in Management structure. However, being the lead bank of the consortium, we wold like to inform you that that the process of induction of a new investor under the SDR scheme has been annulled by our higher authorities.
In view of the above, we request you to kindly give us an appointment, so that our authorized officials can have a meeting to ensure a smooth transition and continuity for completion of the project works and agree on the standard operating procedure for the same. Till such time, you are kindly requested that no payments and/or LIR No.10/18 Page 22 of 23 decisions in relation to the project be made at the behest of the incumbent management."
Above information by lenders shows that financial condition of management No.3 is in dire straits and hence, relief of reinstatement is ruled out. As per salary structure sheet Ex.WW1/8 of the claimant issued by management No.3, he had joined management No.3 on 29.12.2012. His service was terminated on 21.09.2016. In this way, he had worked for about 04 years. The claimant deposed that his last drawn salary was Rs.14,490/ and that fact has been corroborated by his salary slip Ex.WW1/10. Taking into account the length of service and last drawn salary, the management No.3 is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,20,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) to the claimant within a month from the date of publication of the award, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on it @ 9 per cent per annum from today till its realization. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly.
21. The requisite number of copies of the award be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for its publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated to the P.A. & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 16.03.2018. PILOT COURT/POLCXVII DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI.
LIR No.10/18 Page 23 of 23