Delhi District Court
The Present Reference Has Been Sent To ... vs P.O.Labour on 4 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. N.K. KAUSHIK : POLC : VI :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
I.D. NO.249/2005
Date of institution 06.7.05
Date on which case was reserved for award 01.8.08
Date on which award passed 04.8.08
BETWEEN
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S SHARDA ENGINEERING,
ADD- 79 LAL KUAN, MAHRAULI,
BADARPUR ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044.
AND
ITS WORKMAN
Sh. MOTI RAM YADAV S/O SHRI MAHARAJDEEN YADAV
C/O OKHLA INDUSTRIAL WORKS UNION ( REGD.)
BHARTIYA MAZDOOR SANGH
NEAR KALKAJI BUS DEPOT
GOVINDPURI,
NEW DELHI- 110019
AWARD
1.The present reference has been sent to this court, for adjudication, by the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, vide, order no. F.24(611)/05/Lab/2656-60 dated : 8.6.05 with the following terms of reference:-
TERMS OF REFERENCE "Whether the services of Shri Moti Ram Yadav s/o shri Maharajdeen Yadav have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/ Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The case, set up by the claimant is that he was appointed on the 2 post of ' Fitter-man' by the management on 7.3.1992, on the last drawn wags of Rs. 4200/- per month.
3. It is further alleged that the claimant had been working sincerely and with devotion but the management was not providing him legal facilities like appointment letter, earned leave, casual leave, attendance register etc. That he was subjected to illegal exploitation. That the management got signatures of the workman on several blank papers stamped and unstamped and also on blank vouchers. That the management withheld earned wages of the claimant from 1.3.2004 to 31.5.2004 and that the workman was illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management, on 01.6.2004.
4. That the claimant served upon the management notice of demand dated 11.8.2004, but to no effect.
5. That the claimant is without any gainful employment since the date of his alleged termination. He has, therefore, sought reinstatement with full back wages.
6. The management has countered the claim and contentions of the workman. It is alleged that the correct name of the establishment is M/s 'Sharda Engineering Works' and not 'Sharda Engineering'. It is, therefore, alleged that the present claim is not maintainable. The management has further alleged that the claimant left the service and joined some other concern, sometime in the year 2000. That he worked only for two years with 3 this management and again approached them for employment in Sept. 2002 That he again left on his own for betterment. It is alleged that the present claim is not maintainable under section 2A of the I.D.Act, 1947. All other allegations of the claimant have, specifically, been denied.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues arose and were framed, on 01.2.2006:-
1. Whether the service of the workman in question has been illegally or unjustifiably terminated without consequent benefits in terms of existing laws, if any, to which the workman is entitled to? OPD
2. Relief.
8. The claimant has examined himself as WW-1, in support of his claim and contentions. The management has also produced one witness.
9. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing, on record and have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.
10. The AR of the management has cited case law reported as 2004-I-
LLJ Page 867, in the matter of DhanaLakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. P.O.Labour Court.
11. I have carefully examined the claim and contentions as well as the case law reported at the bar. My findings,issuewise, are as under:- 4
12. The workman, in his cross examination, has totally demolished his case. He has admitted that he did not know the contents of his affidavit, by which, he has led his evidence. He was not clear as to when he was terminated, in as much as, he has deposed , firstly, that he was terminated in the year 2000. Again, he said that he was terminated in the year 2004. He has deposed that the name of the management is 'Sharda Enggineering '. The affidavit which has had filed , on record, however, indicates the name of the management as 'Sharda Engineering Works'.
13. The workman has further deposed that he had been working only with 'Sharda Engineering', whereas, he has filed the affidavit showing the name of the management as 'Sharda Engineering Works'. He could not explain the change in the affidavit submitted by him.
14. The workman has further submitted that he did not join the factory of the management despite offer given to him by the management in their written statement. The workman has further admitted that he was drawing salary at the rate of Rs. 4200/- per month and that after his alleged termination he worked with M/S 'Kamal Engineering work', Gurukul, Faridabad, for about 10 months. He has admitted document EXWW1/M1 also.
15. The workman has further admitted that at present, he is working with M/s 'Balaji Engineering', Gurukul and drawing wages @ 4900/- per month i.e more wages than what he was drawing from the management. He 5 has admitted that he had not been unemployed since the date of his alleged termination, which is contrary to his assertions, made in the statement of claim.
16. The fact that he was drawing more wages after his alleged termination proves the point raised by the management that the claimant had left the management, for betterment, on his own. This witness has admitted it to be correct that he is drawing higher salary than what he had been paid by the 'Sharda Engineering'. The workman, therefore, failed to prove his case, in the first instance.
17. It was held in the case law cited above and reported as 'DhanaLakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. P.O.Labour Court' (2004-I-LLJ P. 867) that:-
"Sec 2-A(2)- Dispute under section 2A(2) is not maintainable unless it pertains to four categories therein specified, namely, discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination"
The claimant has, therefore, failed to prove his case. The management witness , on the other hand, proves the document EXMW /M-1 and has deposed that the claimant had voluntarily absented from job, just to join another establishment, which is admitted by the claimant, in his cross examination.
6
1. It therefore, obtains on record, that the claimant was not illegally terminated by the management and that the claimant himself left the management for getting better wages.
2. Further, whatever the claimant has asserted, in his statement of claim, could not be proved, on record, that after his termination, he is without any gainful employment. In any case, when the claimant himself has failed to prove his case, he is not entitled to anything. This issue, accordingly, stands answered against the claimant and in favour of the management.
RELIEF.
3. In view of the findings recorded, hereinabove, the claimant has failed to prove his claim. He is not entitled to anything, much less, what is claimed by him in his statement of claim. The claim of the workman is, hereby, dismissed.
4. An award, in the aforesaid terms, is hereby passed.
5. A copy of the award be sent to Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for publication, as per law.
6. After the statutory compliance and period is over, file be consigned 7 to record room.
(N.K. KAUSHIK)
PRESIDING OFFICER
DATED : 04.8.2008 LABOUR COURT NO. VI
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI.