Delhi District Court
C/O Sh. Piyush Kumar Sharma vs M/S Sycoriaan Matrimonial Services Ltd on 13 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - XIX
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1410/17
Sh. Ravneet Singh
S/o late Sh. Paramjeet Singh
R/o: WZ491, IIIrd Floor,
Gali no. 12, M.S.Block, Hari Nagar,
Delhi - 110064
C/o Sh. Piyush Kumar Sharma
(Social Worker)
RZ755, Gali no. 5, Main Sagarpur,
New Delhi - 110046
....CLAIMANT
VERSUS
M/s Sycoriaan Matrimonial Services Ltd.
AB1, Kamal Cinema Complex
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029
....MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 04.05.2017
Date of passing the Award : 13.11.2018
A W A R D
1.Vide this reference dated 15.03.2017, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had referred to this court, an industrial dispute between the parties named above, for adjudication, exercising powers under Section 10 (1) (c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8 Act), specifying the terms of reference as under : "Whether services of Sh. Ravneet Singh (Age
- 41) Mobile No: 9999928966 s/o Sh.
Paramjeet Singh have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Pursuant to the service of notice of reference, the claimant had appeared and filed his statement of claim, claiming therein that he was appointed as telemarketing executive by the management on 01.01.2006 with his last drawn salary of Rs. 20,000/ per month, however, no appointment letter was issued to him by the management. Claimant was stated to be performing his duties honestly and diligently without giving any chance of any complaint of whatsoever nature to the management and was never issued any memo or charge sheet in his entire service tenure. However, it was averred further that the claimant was deprived of legal facilities such as PF, ESI, Bonus, appointment letter, leave encashment etc and when the claimant had demanded these legal facilities, the management got annoyed and was looking for some reason to dispense with his services. It was averred further that the management had leveled false allegations of data theft against the claimant and on 04.04.2016, he was informed that the police was going to undertake the investigation of the matter and therefore, he was not required to report to the LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8 office until the investigation was completed.
On 22.04.2016, the management had sent a notice to the claimant regarding data theft and illegal possession of the articles and ultimately his services were abruptly terminated in an illegal and arbitrary manner by the management withholding his salary for the month of March 2016 as well.
On 01.06.2016, the claimant had sent a demand notice to the management which was stated to be duly served upon the management and the management had duly replied the same, wherein, it had admitted the existence of employer and employee relationship but had not agreed to reinstate the claimant or to release his salary. Claimant was stated to have also approached the labour authorities but all his efforts went in vain and hence the present reference was made. It was claimed in the statement of claim that the claimant was entitled to be reinstated in his service with full back wages along with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
3. Notice of the statement of claim was sent to the management which was duly served upon it and management had also appeared to contest the claim of the claimant and filed its written statement, wherein, it was averred that management was in the business of matrimonial LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8 services for the last about 20 years and was enjoying a good reputation in the market. It was stated that the present claimant along with his wife (claimant in LIR No. 1404/17) were involved in the data theft of the management and despite clearance of their entire dues, they had filed number of false cases against the management.
Regarding other paras which were either not specifically admitted or essentially and purely constituted matter of record, same were denied by it as incorrect.
4. Vide order dated 27.09.2017, ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the following issues :
1. Whether Sh. Ravneet Singh (workman) simply worked with management on contract basis and was not a regular employee?
O.P.M.
2. Whether services of workman were terminated by management illegally and unjustifiably? O.P.W.
3. Whether workman has already received his full and final dues from the management? O.P.M.
4. Relief.
5. In order to discharge the onus of proving the issues, the claimant had appeared as his own witness and filed in evidence, his examination in chief by way of affidavit LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8 Ex. WW1/A wherein he had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the following documents :
1. photocopy of the Aadhar Card is Ex. WW1/1;
2. copy of the legal notice dated 22.04.2016 is Ex. WW1/2;
3. photocopy of his ICard is Ex. WW1/3;
4. copy of the demand letter dated 01.06.2016 is Ex. WW1/4;
5. photocopy of the communication dated 30.03.2016 addressed to the claimant by the management is Ex. WW1/5;
6. copy of the statement of claim filed before the office of the Asst. Labour Commissioner is Ex. WW1/6;
It shall be pertinent to mention here that at the stage of cross examination of claimant, the management had started avoiding its appearance and despite imposition of the cost of Rs. 2,000/ upon it vide order dated 29.05.2018, the management had neither paid the cost nor it had chosen to cross examine the claimant or to adduce its own evidence in rebuttal.
As such, I have gone through the testimony of claimant appearing on record and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue no. 1 - Whether Sh. Ravneet Singh LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8 (workman) simply worked with management on contract basis and was not a regular employee? O.P.M. The onus to prove this issue was upon the management who had chosen not to cross examine the claimant or to adduce its own evidence to discharge the onus of this issue. Rather photocopy of ICard of claimant Ex. WW1/3 tells an entirely different story, as per which, the claimant was shown as a regular employee and not a contractual employee of the management. Issue is accordingly answered in negative and decided in favour of claimant and against the management.
Issue no. 3 - Whether workman has already received his full and final dues from the management? O.P.M. The onus to prove this issue was again upon the management who had chosen not to cross examine the claimant or to adduce its evidence nor any document has been placed on record by it along with its written statement to show that entire dues of claimant were cleared by it. Hence, this issue is also answered in negative and decided against the management and in favour of the claimant.
Issue no. 2 - Whether services of workman were terminated by management illegally and unjustifiably? O.P.W. As is suggestive from the language of the LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8 reference itself, the onus to prove this issue was upon the claimant who had categorically stated so in his statement of claim as well as in his affidavit Ex. WW1/A. Furthermore, documents Ex. WW1/2 as well as Ex. WW1/5 undisputedly go to suggest that the management had accused the claimant of data theft and had also sent a legal notice in this regard asking him to return the articles in his possession and as per Ex. WW1/5, the claimant was asked not to report for his duties as long as police investigation was pending against him. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the claimant shall be informed about further decision of the management regarding his joining of duties in due course of time. However, no subsequent document has been placed on record by either side to show that the management had subsequently taken any decision regarding the claimant's employment or had ever conveyed the same to him.
Thus, from the unrebutted testimony of claimant coupled with the documents placed and proved on record by him, I have no hesitation in holding that the management had not only illegally but also unjustifiably terminated the services of the claimant without its allegations having proved against him related to data theft and thus the issue is answered in affirmative in favour of the claimant and against the management.
Relief : In view of my findings to issue no. 2 LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8 above, the statement of claim as filed by the claimant is allowed and though the management cannot be put under any obligation to reinstate the claimant with full back wages because of bitterness in the relationship between the parties, however, the management is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the claimant towards his illegal termination and all other consequential benefits to which he was legally entitled to receive from the management.
Statement of claim as filed is allowed and reference stands answered accordingly.
Copy of the award be sent to the Labour Commissioner for publication. Case file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
DATED: 13.11.2018
LOKESH Digitally signed by
LOKESH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2018.11.15
SHARMA 09:55:19 +0530
(LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT - XIX
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No: 1410/17 Page 8 of 8