Delhi District Court
Sh Gopal Chakarverti vs M/S Associated Forex Services & Ors Id ... on 10 August, 2010
SH GOPAL CHAKARVERTI VS M/S ASSOCIATED FOREX SERVICES & ORS ID No.210/06
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRATAP S. MALIK THE PRESIDING OFFICER IN
LABOUR COURT XI, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Computer identification No. 02402C0590382006
Reference No. F.24 (1141)/05-Lab. 3662-3666 dated
17.10.2006
Type of Case Reference Case
Date of Institution 26.10.2006
Final Arguments Heard on 10.08.2010
Date of Award 10.08.2010
WORKMAN MANAGEMENT
SH. GOPAL CHAKARVERTI, S/O i. M/S. ASSOCIATED FOREX SERVICES
SH. N. CHAKARVERTI C/O ALL INDIA Vs LIMITED, M-43, CONNAUGHT
GENERAL MAZDOOR TRADE UNION PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001
(REGD.), 170, BAL MUKUND KHAND, GIRI ii. M/S. GOLDEN WINGS PRIVATE
NAGAR, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019 LIMITED, 2E/25, JHANDEWALAN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110055
PRESENT:
None for the parties
AWARD:.
1.The appropriate Government sent a Reference No. F.24 (1141)/05-Lab. 3662-3666 dated 17.10.2006 to this court in relation to the illegal termination of the workman Gopal Chakarverti by the Management M/s. Associated Forex Services Limited & M/s. Golden Wings Private Limited. The reference specifically points out as follows:-
"Whether the services of Sh. Gopal Chakarverti S/o Sh. N. Chakarverti have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with the consequential benefits in terms of existing laws / Government notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"AWARD Page 1 of 5
SH GOPAL CHAKARVERTI VS M/S ASSOCIATED FOREX SERVICES & ORS ID No.210/06
2. As per claim, the workman Gopal Chakarverti was working with the Management M/s. Associated Forex Services Limited since 24.02.1996 as a "Driver" and his last drawn salary was Rs.5,500/- p.m. When this workman started pressing demands of his legal facilities, the Management got angry and stopped his earned wages from 01.02.2005 to 04.02.2005. Thereafter on 04.02.2005 the services of the workman were terminated without any notice/ chargesheet. Nothing was paid to him.
3. The Management filed its reply/written statement stating that the workman was not working properly and he was spoiling the cordial atmosphere of the working place. The Management also pleaded to have requested this workman to accept a sum of Rs.20,250/-in respect of due salary and gratuity for 9 years. The Management stated that the workman stated that the workman had refused to accept the same.
4. Initially M/s. Golden Wings Private Limited was also impleaded as Management no. 2 but its name was deleted in the court proceedings dated 09.01.2008. Therefore, no further reference is made in that behalf in the present award.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the ld. Predecessor vide its order dated 09.01.2008 framed the following issues:-
i. As per terms of reference
6. The workman examined himself as WW1. He reiterated his claim in his evidence affidavit. He exhibited his letter of appointment as Ex. WW1/7. The Management was given opportunity to cross- examine the workman, but the Management failed repeatedly and subsequently the opportunity of the Management to cross-examine the workman was closed vide order dated 20.04.2010.
7. The Management was asked to lead its evidence but it again failed to lead any evidence in its favour. Therefore, the AWARD Page 2 of 5 SH GOPAL CHAKARVERTI VS M/S ASSOCIATED FOREX SERVICES & ORS ID No.210/06 opportunity of the Management to lead any evidence was also closed on 26.07.2010.
ISSUE NO.1:-
8. In this issue this court has to adjudicate upon as to whether the services of Sh.
Gopal Chakarverti S/o Sh. N. Chakarverti have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with the consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Government notifications and to what other relief he is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.
9. As per uncontroverted evidence of the workman it is clear the services of the workman were terminated on 04.02.2005 without any notice or chargesheet. His salary from 01.02.2005 to 04.02.2005 was also not released. This action of the Management is an act of retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Neither in its pleadings nor in its evidence the Management has ever made a case that this retrenchment of services of the workman was made in accordance with the Section 25 F and 25 G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
10. However, some pleadings were made by the Management that they tried to furnish some amount to the workman, but it was never proved before the court. Hence the pleadings of the Management cannot be relied upon.
11. The Management had also not shown any other ground as to why the relief claimed by the workman be not granted in his favour. A full opportunity was provided to the Management to cross- examine the evidence and further to lead evidence in favour of its pleadings. The Management M/s. Associated Forex Services Private Limited failed on each count. The Management, by its conduct appears to have admitted the claim of the workman.
Acquiescence of the Management is very significant in this case. AWARD Page 3 of 5 SH GOPAL CHAKARVERTI VS M/S ASSOCIATED FOREX SERVICES & ORS ID No.210/06
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ANOOP SHARMA VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEATH DIVISION NO. 1 PANIPAT (HARYANA) has held that:-
"We have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25 F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of employer as nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated."
13. In KRISHNA BAHADUR VS. PURAN T HEATER, 2004 (103) FLR 146 SC., the Hon'ble Court held that the requirement of Section 25 F (b) the Industrial Disputes Act was imperative. The contravention thereof would render the retrenchment void ab initio. In the present case there is violation of not only Section 25 F (a) & (b) the Industrial Disputes Act but of Rule 77 the Industrial Disputes Rules also.
14. Following the aforesaid laws laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ANOOP SHARMA (SUPRA) AND KRISHNA BAHADUR (SUPRA ) this court also holds that the retrenchment of the workman in the present matter was void ab initio with no consequent disabilities to the workman. The impugned retrenchment of the workman by the Management was legally defective. It was as good as there was no retrenchment at all. It had followed no consequences.
15. As a corollary of this order the status of the workman would be as no retrenchment order was passed on 04.02.2005 and he continued in service with the Management with all consequential benefits and reliefs arising out of the same.
RELIEF:-
16. In view of the facts and the law as aforesaid, this court is of the view that the retrenchment of the workman is illegal and he deserves reinstatement with an immediate effect.
AWARD Page 4 of 5 SH GOPAL CHAKARVERTI VS M/S ASSOCIATED FOREX SERVICES & ORS ID No.210/06
17. He is further held to be entitled to his earned wages from 01.04.2005 to 04.02.2005.
18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the workman is also held to be entitled to receive 50% of his earned wages from 05.02.2005 till the date of his reinstatement as damages.
19. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of the Award be sent to the Secretary (Labour) for necessary compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room after completing due formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.08.2010 PRATAP S. MALIK POLC XI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi AWARD Page 5 of 5