Delhi District Court
Claimant( vs M/S Decathlon Sports India Pvt Ltd on 13 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
LID No. 319/18
Date of institution 23.07.2018
Date of Award 13.11.2019
Himanshu Kumar
S/o Lt. Sh. Kishor Lal
R/o C201, Pul Pehaldpur
M.B. Road, Near Shiv Mandir
Badarpur, New Delhi110044
.....Claimant(Workman).
Vs.
M/s Decathlon Sports India Pvt Ltd.
TATA Housing Xylem,
8th Floor, Plot no.4 and 4(A)
Mahadevpura Post, ITBP Main Road
Whitefield, Banglore 560048
Also At:
1st floor, Metro Walk Mall
near Station, Rithala Metro Parking
Off Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Sector 11
Rohini, Delhi 110085 .....Management
LID no. 319/18 1/23
AWARD
1. This award of mine will dispose off the statement of
claim filed by the claimant namely Sh. Himanshu Kumar against
the managements namely M/s Decathlon Sports India Pvt Ltd.
2. The claimant has filed the statement of claim, stating therein that
he is handicapped person. He had applied for job as Sports
Advisor with the management, in response to the same, the
management had issued appointment letter dated 17.08.2015
and the management had offered to the claimant to report for
duties w.e.f. 17.08.2015 at the fixed wages of Rs 22,000/- per
month. The claimant had accepted the terms of appointment
letter and reported for the duties.
3. It is also stated that on reporting of duties by the claimant, he
was taken on the role by the management in the terms and
conditions, as enumerated in the letter of appointment and the
claimant was kept on probation for a period upto six months.
4. It is also stated that the management has its branch office at
different locations in India and also having Overseas Branch in
LID no. 319/18 2/23
England and the could be transferred at any branch of the
management, as per the requirement of the management.
5. The claimant has further stated that he was to perform the duties
under one namely Sh. Anshul Adhlakha and Store Chief Mr. Piyush
Khattar in branch office at Rohini, New Delhi.
6. Claimant has also stated that he had performed his duties to the
fullest satisfaction of his superiors without any adverse remarks.
He has further stated that his salary was enhanced by the
management from Rs. 22,000/- to 25,000/- per month during the
month of January, 2017. He has also stated that the
management was satisfied with the work of the claimant. He did
not receive any letter for extending his period of probation.
Therefore, he was confirmed as regular employee of the
management.
7. The claimant has further stated that he had performed his duties
beyond the assigned duties and beyond the duty hours.
8. The claimant has also stated that he had applied for his transfer
LID no. 319/18 3/23
for Noida and also applied for his transfer at England, for which,
he was put on the process of selection and he had appeared and
interviewed by the management and Sh. Piyush Khattar, head of
Rohini Office of the management got annoyed from the claimant
for applying for his transfer and Sh. Piyush Khattar started
humiliating and harassing the claimant for the reasons, best
known to him.
9. The claimant has also stated that on dated 14.02.2017, the
claimant had received a letter from Sh. Piyush Khattar through
e.mail and in the terms of the said letter, the services of the
claimant were terminated w.e.f. 28.02.2027 and the claimant had
served a legal notice to the management on dated 16.02.2017,
after receiving the e.mail on dated 14.02.2017. It is also stated
that the letter of termination of his services is not only illegal but
also in contravention of principle of nature of justice.
10. It is further stated that he had filed an application before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi
and Assistant Labour Commissioner had summoned the
management and the management had appeared and filed its
LID no. 319/18 4/23
reply, but, thereafter no one had bothered to appear on behalf of
the management and hence the Assistant Labour Commissioner
issued the report of failure.
11. It is further stated that the claimant was not given chance to put
his submissions against the allegations levelled against the
claimant. The management has not charged the claimant with
any misconduct and act of termination of the management is
illegal and arbitrary and prayed for reinstating him from the date
of illegal termination of his services and to compensate the
claimant, as he is jobless from the date of illegal termination of
his service.
12. The notices of statement of claim was issued to the
management, but despite of service of notice, the management
did not appear in the Court and vide order dated 21.02.2019 the
management was proceeded ex-parte and the matter was fixed
for ex-parte evidence of the claimant.
13. In order to prove his case, the claimant has examined himself as
WW-1 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-1/1, in one way or the other, he
LID no. 319/18 5/23
has reiterated the contents of his statement of claim therein. He
has relied upon the photocopy of letter of appointment dated
17.08.2015 Ex. Ex. WW1/A, copy of e-mail dated 14.02.2017 vide
which the services of the claimant were ordered to be terminated
w.e.f. 28.02.2017 Ex. WW-1/B, copy of the legal notice dated
16.02.2017 Ex. WW-1/C, copy of disability certificate Ex. WW-1/D,
copy of Aadhar card of the claimant Ex. WW-1/E, copy of failure
report dated 08.11.2017 Ex. WW-1/F. The claimant did not
examine any other witness.
14. I have heard Authorized Representatives of the claimant and
perused the record.
15. Ld. Authorized Representative of the claimant has submitted that
this claimant was appointed in the management vide
appointment letter Ex. WW1/A on dated 17.08.2015 as Sports
Advisor and submitted that the claimant has received letter of
termination, copy whereof is Ex. WW1/B through e.mail dated
14.02.2017 and the claimant had worked in the management till
28.02.2017, as the termination of the services of the claimant
was effective since 28.02.2017 and submitted that the claimant
LID no. 319/18 6/23
is a handicapped person and the claimant had served legal notice
dated 16.02.2017 to the concerned person of the management,
copy whereof is Ex. WW1/C and despite of service of the legal
notice, the services of the claimant were illegally terminated by
the management, so, the claimant is entitled to be reinstated
with full back wages.
16. The perusal of the record reveals that the claimant has claimed
that he was appointed in the management on dated 17.08.2015
vide letter of appointment photocopy whereof is Ex. WW1/A and
his services have been illegally terminated by the management
vide contract termination letter dated 14.02.2017 Ex. WW1/B,
which was received by him through Gmail and his services were
terminated w.e.f. 28.02.2017 and the claimant had lastly worked
in the management on dated 28.02.2017.
17. In order to prove his case, the claimant has examined himself as
WW1, vide his affidavit Ex. WW1/1 and in one way or the other,
he has reiterated the contents of his statement of claim therein.
He has relied upon the copy of letter of appointment dated
17.08.2015 Ex. WW1/A, Copy of gmail dated 14.02.2017 Ex.
LID no. 319/18 7/23
WW1/B, vide which, the services of the claimant were
terminated, copy of legal notice dated 16.02.2017 Ex. WW1/C,
Copy of disability certificate Ex. WW1/D, copy of Aadhar Card Ex.
WW1/E and copy of failure report dated 08.11.2017 Ex. WW1/F.
18. Ld. AR of the claimant has submitted that the services of the
claimant have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the
management, as he was humiliated by one Piyush Khattar, who
was the head of Rohini Office of the management. The perusal of
the contents of the photocopy of letter of contract termination
Ex.WW1/B reveals that this claimant was served with the warning
letter by the management in the month of November, prior to the
termination of his services by the management, but, the claimant
did not take care about the same. The perusal of the Ex. WW1/B
also reveals that lack of conviction (on IDMs) was also observed
by the management, as it is mentioned in this letter that this
claimant was asked to submit IDM after the meeting in the
month of October, but, this claimant did not submit IDM after
meeting to his senior. He had also made commitment with his
senior in the management to take some topic seriously in future
with Nitin, but, inspite of reminders, the management did not
receive any document from the claimant and, thus, the
LID no. 319/18 8/23
management found the claimant to be irresponsible and
negligent and therefore, his services were ordered to be
terminated w.e.f. 28.02.2017.
19. Thus, the contents of the statement of claim of his affidavit Ex.
WW1/1 are found to be inconsistent to the contents of this letter
of termination Ex. WW1/B, as the claimant has mentioned in his
statement of claim and affidavit Ex. WW1/1 that he had
performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superior without
any adverse remarks,whatsoever and also stated that the
management company was satisfied with his work, but, the copy
of letter Ex. WW1/B reveals that the claimant was not performing
his duties properly, so, he was also issued letter of warning in the
month of November, 2016, but, despite of issuance of warning
letter, this claimant did not take care and similarly, it is also
mentioned in the copy of letter Ex. WW1/B, vide which, the
services of the claimant were terminated that the management
had observed lack of conviction of doing work as despite of
giving reminders by the management, the claimant was not
obeying the directions of his superior and this document Ex.
WW1/B is brought on record by the claimant, which clearly
LID no. 319/18 9/23
manifests that in view of non-satisfactory performance and in
view of lack of conviction to do the work and also in view of
negligent behavior and conduct of the claimant, the services of
the claimant were terminated by the management and thus, the
statement of claim and affidavit of the claimant, which reveals
that such averments made in the statement of claim and affidavit
Ex. WW1/1 that the claimant had worked in the management to
the satisfaction of the management are found to be false.
20. The claimant has claimed in his statement of claim and affidavit
that he joined as Sports Advisor, whereas, the perusal of the para
no. 9 of the legal notice Ex. WW1/C, reveals that the claimant has
mentioned therein that he was appointed as Sports Manager,
thus, there are inconsistency in the statement of claim, affidavit
Ex. WW1/1 and in the contents of the para no. 9 of the legal
notice dated 16.09.2017 Ex. WW1/C is looked into, wherein it is
mentioned that the claimant had joined the Sports Manager, then
being Sports Manager, the claimant cannot be considered as
workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the ID Act. The
perusal of the report of failure dated 08.11.2017 Ex. WW1/F of
conciliation officer reveals that it is mentioned therein that the
LID no. 319/18 10/23
management had filed reply before the conciliation
officer/assistant Labour Commissioner, wherein, the management
had stated that the claimant does not fall within the ambit of
definition of workman as given u/s 2(S) of the I.D. Act, as this
claimant was appointed as Sport Advisor and drawing salary of
Rs. 25,000/- per month. Thus, the management has denied that
the claimant is workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of
the I.D. Act, so, it was incumbent on the part of the claimant to
prove that he is workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of
the Industrial Dispute Act and if the para no.9 of the legal notice
Ex. WW1/C is looked into wherein the claimant has claimed to be
appointed by the management as "Sports Manager", so, the
claimant being sports Manager, cannot be considered as
workman within the meaning of Section 2 (S) of the I.D. Act.
21. The claimant has claimed that he was confirmed in the
management and the ld. AR for the claimant has submitted that
since the claimant was appointed in the management on dated
17.08.2015 and his period of probation was of six months and
after the expiry of period of six months, the claimant is deemed
to have been confirmed in the management.
LID no. 319/18 11/23
22. The perusal of the photocopy of letter of appointment Ex.
WW1/A reveals that the claimant was on probation upto six
months and it is also mentioned therein that the period of
probation could be extended to such period, as could be specified
by his manager and thereafter the confirmation of employment of
the claimant was to be informed to the claimant in writing. The
claimant has failed to bring on record any letter, vide which, he
was confirmed in the management and in the absence of any
confirmation letter of the claimant, it cannot be assumed or
presumed that the claimant was confirmed in the management
after expiry of period of six months.
23. As their lordship of Supreme Court in G.S. Ramaswamy v.
Inspector-General of Police, Mysore3, AIR 1966 SC 175 The
Constitution Bench, while dealing with the language employed
under Rule 486 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, referred
to the decision in Sukhbans Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1962
S.C. 1711 and opined as follows:-
"It has been held in that case that a probationer cannot after the
expiry of the probationary period automatically acquire the
status of a permanent member of a service, unless of course the
LID no. 319/18 12/23
rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a
result. Therefore even though a probationer may have continued
to act in the post to which he is on probation for more than the
initial period of probation, he cannot become a permanent
servant merely because of efflux of time, unless the Rules of
service which govern him specifically lay down that the
probationer will; be automatically confirmed after the initial
period of probation is over. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioners before us that the part of r. 486 (which we have set
out above) expressly provides for automatic confirmation after
the period of probation is over. We are of opinion that there is no
force in this contention. It is true that the words used in the
sentence set out above are not that promoted officers will be
enable or qualified for promotion at the end of their probationary
period which are the words to be often found in the rules in such
eases; even so, though this part of r. 486 says that "promoted
officers will be confirmed at the end of their probationary
period", it is qualified by the words "if they have given
satisfaction". Clearly therefore the rule does not contemplate
automatic confirmation after the probationary period of two
years, for a promoted officer can only be confirmed under this
rule if he has given satisfaction."
12. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akbar Ali Khan, AIR 1966 SC
1842, another Constitution Bench ruled that if the order of
appointment itself states that at the end of the period of
probation, in the absence of any order to the contrary, the
appointee will acquire a substantive right to the post even
without an order of confirmation. In all other cases, in the
absence of such an order or in the absence of such a service
rule, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give him
such a right. Where after the period of probation, an appointee is
allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation,
the only possible view to take is that by implication, the period of
probation has been extended, and it is not a correct proposition
to state that an appointee should be deemed to be confirmed
from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue after the end of
the period of probation.
13. In State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210, the
Constitution Bench, after scanning the anatomy of the Rules in
question, AIR 1966 SC 1842 AIR 1968 SC 1210 addressed itself
to the precise effect of Rule 6 of the Punjab Educational Service
(Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961. The said Rule
stipulated that the total period of probation - including
extensions, if any, shall not exceed three years. This Court
referred to the earlier view which had consistently stated that
when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for
a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the
post after the expiry of the period without any specific order of
confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his post as a
LID no. 319/18 13/23
probationer only in the absence of any indication to the contrary
in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service
rules. Under these circumstances, an express order of
confirmation is imperative to give the employee a substantive
right to the post and from the mere fact that he is allowed to
continue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of
probation, it is difficult to hold that he should be deemed to have
been confirmed. When the service rules fixed a certain period of
time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended
and an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation
is allowed to continue in that post after completion of the
maximum period of probation without an express order of
confirmation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that post as a
probationer by implication. It is so as such an implication is
specifically negatived by the service rule forbidding extension of
the probationary period beyond the maximum period fixed by it."
24. Thus, from the law laid down by their lordship of Supreme Court
in the above said judgements, it is crystal clear that there is no
presumption regarding the confirmation of a probationer after the
expiry of period of probation. Even otherwise, the terms of the
letter of appointment of the claimant makes it clear that the
period of probation of this claimant was upto six months and it
was permissible for the manager of the claimant to extend such
period of probation and it is also mentioned therein that on the
confirmation of employment of the claimant, it was required to
be informed to the claimant in writing, but, the claimant has
failed to bring on record any cogent written proof of confirmation
of his services in the management. Had the claimant been
confirmed in the management, the claimant could be informed in
LID no. 319/18 14/23
writing by the management, as per the terms mentioned in the
letter of appointment Ex. WW1/A and since, the claimant has
failed to bring on record any such letter of confirmation of his
employment in the management, so, it is held that the claimant
was not confirmed in the management, as the claimant has failed
to fortify his averment made in the statement of claim regarding
the confirmation of his services in the management.
25. Therefore, the claimant was the probationer. The claimant has
claimed that his services have been illegally and unjustifiably
terminated by the management.
26. Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:-
"Section 2(oo) - "retrenchment" means the termination
by the employer of the service of a workman for any
reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment
inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not
include
(a)...................................... (b) ......................................
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a
result of the non- renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman
concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained
therein; or (c) ........................................"
27. The law with respect to the termination of the service of
LID no. 319/18 15/23
a probationer is well settled that the probationer is not a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and the service of a probationer can be terminated
during the period of probation in terms of the appointment and
such termination does not amount to retrenchment within the
meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
28. In M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, (1994) 2 SCC
323, the service of the workman was terminated during the
extended probation period. The Supreme Court held that the
termination before the expiry of the period of probation fell within
the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
it did not constitute retrenchment.
29.In Escorts Limited v. Presiding Officer, (1997) 11 SCC In Kalyani
Sharp India Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior, (2002) 9 SCC 655,
the trainee was terminated during the period of probation. Their
Lordship of Supreme Court held that there was no infirmity in the
termination of trainee on probation. The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced as under:
"6. The order of employment itself clearly sets out the terms thereafter which
makes it clear that the facility of providing training to him could be put to an
end to at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever and his services
could be regularised only on satisfactory completion of his training. If these
clauses are read together, it is clear he was under probation during the
relevant time and if his services are not satisfactory, the same could be put an
end to. It is clear that the respondent had been appointed as a Trainee Service
Technician and for a period he had to undergo the training to the satisfaction of the appellant and if his work was not satisfactory during that period the facility could be withdrawn at any time and he would be regularised only on completion of his training. Thus the respondent's services were terminated before expiry of the probationary period. In such a case, question of issue of LID no. 319/18 16/23 notice before terminating the service as claimed by the respondent does not arise. Escorts' case (supra) is identical with the present case. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein these appeals are allowed. The order made by the High Court affirming the award made by the Labour Court is set aside and the claim made by the respondent is dismissed."
30. In Mahinder Singh v. Indian Airlines Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5008, the Division Bench of this Court following M. Venugopal (supra), Escorts Limited (supra) and Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. (supra) held that the termination of service of a probationer in terms of the stipulation contained in the contract of employment does not amount to "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act since it is covered by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and Section 25-F of the Act does not get attracted in such cases. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"14. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court governing the field it can be safely culled out that termination of service of a probationer in terms of the stipulation contained in the contract of employment does not tantamount to "retrenchment"
within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act since it is covered by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Thus, Section 25-F of the Act does not get attracted in such cases."
31. Ld. AR of the claimant has submitted that the services of the claimant have been illegally and unjustifiablly terminated by the management, as he was humiliated by one Piyush Khattar, head of Rohini Office of the management.
32. Had the claimant been humiliated by Piyush Khattar, i.e. Head of LID no. 319/18 17/23 the Rohini Office, the claimant could file the complaint to the senior officers in the management or in labour office or to the police, but, the claimant has no where stated in his statement of claim or his affidavit that he has filed any complaint against Piyush Khattar in the Labour office, to any Senior Officer of the management or to the police and in the absence of any such complaint against the Sh. Piyush Khattar, such statement of the claimant does not inspire any confidence that Sh. Piyush Khattar has ever humiliated or harassed to the claimant, so, it appears to the court that after termination of his services, the claimant has concocted such story against one Mr. Piyush Khattar.
33. Ld. AR of the claimant has submitted that this claimant was performing well in the management,but, the copy of the contract termination Ex. WW1/B reveals that his performance was not good, despite of issuance of the warning letter to the claimant by the management and this claimant was not obeying the orders of the seniors in the management. The claimant was supposed to comply with the directions of the senior and in view of such delinquent and negligent conduct, his services were terminated vide Ex. WW1/B. LID no. 319/18 18/23
34. The claimant has claimed that his services have been illegally terminated by the management, so, he was supposed to prove the same, even if, the management was proceeded exparte. but, the claimant has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence (except his affidavit Ex. WW1/1) to prove that he has performed well in the management and despite of it, the services of the claimant were terminated illegally by the management. Since, the letter of termination Ex WW1/D relied upon by the claimant reveals that the performance of the claimant did not improve, despite of warning letter issued by the management to the claimant, so, the management had to take decisions to terminate the services of the claimant.
35. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of arguments, the claimant was present in the court and on asking to the claimant by this court, as to why his services have been terminated, he has told to the court that his senior had asked him to do some job, but, he had proceeded on leave and then he was intimated by the management that his services have been terminated. Such behaviour of the claimant itself shows that there was LID no. 319/18 19/23 delinquency in his conduct, as he did not comply with the direction of his senior and proceeded on leave.
36. Since the claimant has claimed in his statement of claim and affidavit Ex. WW1/1 that he was appointed as Sports Advisor on dated 17.08.2015, whereas, in para 9 of his legal notice Ex. WW1/C, it is mentioned that the claimant was appointed as "Sports Manager" and in para no.1 thereof it is mentioned that this claimant was working as Sport Advisor, thus, the testimony of the claimant and the documents relied upon by him are inconsistent to each other. The testimony of the claimant is also found to be inconsistent to his letter of termination Ex. WW1/B, as he has concealed this material fact from the court that he was also given warning letter by the management in the month of November, 2016, as mentioned in the letter of termination Ex. WW1/B. He has also concealed this material fact that he did not provide document to the management despite of reminders as mentioned in the Ex. WW1/B. The claimant has claimed that he has performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superior superior without any adverse remarks, but, the letter of termination reveals that he was issued warning letter in the LID no. 319/18 20/23 month of November, 2016. Had this claimant performed his duties in the management to the satisfaction of his superior, he could not be issued any warning letter by the management. The fact of issuance of warning letter (as mentioned in Ex. WW1/B) is not controverted by the claimant in his affidavit. Contents of Ex. WW1/B regarding his lack of conviction of doing job in the management is also not controverted in statement of claim or in his affidavit by the claimant.
37. Since, the claimant failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to prove that he had performed well in the management or that his services have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management (except his affidavit Ex. WW1/1) and in the absence of any cogent evidence, his affidavit Ex. WW1/1 is not sufficient to hold that the services of the claimant were illegally terminated by the management. Even otherwise, the claimant has failed to prove on record that he was confirmed in the management. He was on probation and as per law, a probationer is not the workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
LID no. 319/18 21/23
38. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the claimant has failed to discharge his burden of proving that he had performed well in the management or that his services have been illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management or that the alleged warning letter issued to the claimant was either wrong or contrary to the law or that he was never negligent or that he had never disobeyed the direction of the senior in the management or that his employment in the management was confirmed, therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence of the claimant, I am inclined to hold that the claimant was not confirmed in the management. The testimony of the claimant is also found to be inconsistent to the contents of his letter of termination of his services Ex. WW1/B and legal notice Ex. WW1/C, therefore, the testimony of the claimant does not inspire any confidence and in the given circumstances, it cannot be held that the management had illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the claimant. The claimant is not entitled to get any relief. So, the statement of claim filed by the claimant is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
39. The attested copy of the award be sent to the Office of the LID no. 319/18 22/23 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. Digitally signed PAWAN by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO KUMAR Date:
2019.11.13 MATTO 17:00:40 +0530 Announced in the (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO) Open Court on PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR 13.11.2019 COURT-IX/S-W ROUSE AVENUE COURTS: NEW DELHI LID no. 319/18 23/23 LID no. 319/18 24/23