Delhi District Court
Shri Ganga Sagar Yadav vs M/S Vipin Print Services Pvt. Ltd on 23 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTXIX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
LIR No. 333/2013
Unique ID No. 02402C0 293742013
Shri Ganga Sagar Yadav
S/o Shri Bindra Van Yadav
R/o C126, J.J. Colony, Inderpuri
New Delhi 110012
Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar
Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 .................Workman
Vs.
M/s Vipin Print Services Pvt. Ltd.
A15/1, Naraina Industrial Area
PhaseI, New Delhi 110028 ...............Management
Date of Institution of case : 03.09.2013
Date of reserving the award : 22.12.2014
Date of passing the Award : 22.12.2014
Ref. No. F.24 (188)/13/SWD/Lab./68166818 dated 02.08.2013
A W A R D
Having satisfied regarding existence of an industrial dispute
between the parties, the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of
Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by section 10(1)(c) and 12 (5) of the
LIR No. 333/2013 1 of 4
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') with Labour
Department Notification No. F1/31/616/ESTT/2008/7458 dated 3rd March
2009, referred the present dispute to this Labour Court for adjudication with
the following terms of reference:
"Whether the services of Sh. Ganga Sagar Yadav S/o Sh.
Bindra Van Yadav have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what relief is
he entitled?"
2. Notice of the reference was sent to the workman who appeared
and filed his statement of claim with the prayer to direct the management to
reinstate him in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
He submitted that he was employed as Colour Fitter Man w.e.f. 01.01.2008
on last drawn salary of Rs.6000/ p.m which was less than the minimum
wages of Rs. 8814/ per month. He claimed to have worked to the
satisfaction of the management and never gave any chance of complaint to
the management during his service period. He alleged that he was not
provided any legal benefits and when he demanded the same repeatedly, the
management got annoyed and terminated his services on 14.02.2013 after
obtaining his signatures on blank documents and vouchers and also withheld
his earned wages for the period 01.01.2013 to 13.02.2013. The workman
sent a demand notice dt. 09.03.2013 but the management neither reinstated
him nor paid him any amount. He also filed claim before the Conciliation
officer but it failed. Hence, the present claim was filed.
LIR No. 333/2013 2 of 4
3. Notice of claim was sent to the management but none appeared
for the management despite service. Management was proceeded against ex
parte vide order dt. 04.03.2014.
4. The workman examined himself as WW1 and Sh. K.N. Rai,
Labour Inspector as WW2 in exparte evidence and proved certain
documents and closed exparte evidence on 20.12.2014.
5. I have heard submissions made by Shri Anil Rajput Ld.
Authorized Representative for the workman however, no one appeared on
behalf of management to advance arguments.
6. The workman has filed complaint dated 08.03.2013 made to the
Labour Inspector Ex. WW1/1 and report of the Labour Inspector Ex.
WW1/2. He further placed on record claim filed before the Conciliation
Officer Ex. WW1/3, demand notice Ex. WW1/4 and its postal receipts Ex.
WW1/5 & 6. It has been mentioned in the report of the labour Inspector that
the management did not produce any record relating to the workman nor
reinstate him back in service. This clearly smells malafide on part of the
management. Hence, in view of the aforesaid it is clear that the workman
was illegally terminated, in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the
ID Act on 14.02.2013 without issuing any notice to him or holding any
LIR No. 333/2013 3 of 4
domestic inquiry or issuing him any charge sheet. This plea of workman
was not challenged by the management and hence, it remained unrebutted.
7. Thus, in my view, the workman has successfully proved that he
was illegally terminated from the services by the management on
14.02.2013. There was no domestic inquiry conducted by the management before his removal nor he was served with any notice of termination required u/s 25F of the ID Act.
8. In view of the above and since it has been held that the workman was illegally terminated/retrenched in contravention with the provisions of the ID Act, therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement. His plea that he is jobless since the date of his termination of his service also remained unchallenged. In view thereof, the workman is entitled to full back wages at the revised rate and from the date it became effective with consequential benefits.
Reference of the workman is accordingly answered. Copies of award be sent for publication. File be consigned to Record Room. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23rd Day of December 2014 (SANJAY SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTXIX KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI LIR No. 333/2013 4 of 4