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. 1404/17
Radhika Batra
W/o Sh. Ravneet Singh
R/o: WZ491, 3rd 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: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8 Act), specifying the terms of reference as under : "Whether services of Ms. Radhika Batra (Age
- 28) Mobile No: 9999928966 w/o Sh. Ravneet 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 her statement of claim, claiming therein that she was appointed as Client Services Executive by the management on 01.01.2008 with her last drawn salary of Rs. 14,000/ per month, however, no appointment letter was issued to her by the management. Claimant was stated to be performing her 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 her 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 her services. It was averred further that the management had leveled false allegations of data theft against the claimant and on 04.04.2016, she was informed that the police was going to undertake the investigation of the matter and therefore, she was not required to report to the office until the investigation was completed.LIR No: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8
On 22.04.2016, the management had sent a notice to claimant regarding data theft and illegal possession of the articles and ultimately her 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 01.07.2016, 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 her salary. Claimant was stated to have also approached the labour authorities but all her 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 her 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 services for the last about 20 years and was enjoying a good LIR No: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8 reputation in the market. It was stated that the present claimant along with her husband (claimant in LIR No. 1410/17) 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 Ms. Radhika Batra (claimant) simply worked with management on contract basis and was not a regular employee?
O.P.M.
2. Whether services of claimant were terminated by management illegally and unjustifiably? O.P.W.
3. Whether claimant has already received her 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 her own witness and filed in evidence, her examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A wherein she had reiterated the contents of her LIR No: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8 statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides this, she had also placed on record the following documents :
1. photocopy of Voter ICard is Ex. WW1/1;
2. copy of the legal notice dated 22.04.2016 is Ex. WW1/2;
3. copy of the demand notice dated 01.07.2016 is Ex. WW1/3;
4. copy of the information letter dated 30.03.2016 asking the claimant to stop joining her duties is Ex. WW1/4;
5. copy of the claim petition filed before the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner is Ex. WW1/5;
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.
6. 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 Ms. Radhika Batra (claimant) 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 LIR No: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8 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 letter Ex.WW1/4 tells an entirely different story, as per which, the claimant was shown as an employee of the management. Issue is accordingly answered in negative and decided in favour of claimant and against the management.
Issue no. 3 - Whether claimant has already received her 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 claimant were terminated by management illegally and unjustifiably? O.P.W. As is suggestive from the language of the reference itself, the onus to prove this issue was upon the claimant who had categorically stated so in her statement of claim as well as in her affidavit Ex. WW1/A. Furthermore documents Ex. WW1/2 as well as Ex. WW1/4 undisputedly LIR No: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8 go to suggest that the management had accused the claimant of data theft and had also sent a legal notice in this regard asking her to return the articles in her possession and as per Ex. WW1/4, the claimant was asked not to report for her duties as long as police investigation was pending against her. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the claimant shall be informed about further decision of the management regarding her 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 her.
Thus, from the unrebutted testimony of claimant coupled with the documents placed and proved on record by her, 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 her 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 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, LIR No: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8 however, the management is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the claimant towards her illegal termination and all other consequential benefits to which she 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 Digitally signed by LOKESH LOKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2018.11.15 SHARMA 09:54:41 +0530 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT - XIX DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI LIR No: 1404/17 Page 8 of 8