Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Gajadhar Yadav vs (I) M/S. Indo Plastic Industries on 14 December, 2016

IN  THE  COURT  OF   MS. ILLA RAWAT:   POLC­V: 

KARKARDOOMA  COURT:  DELHI            Old ID No. : 869/2008 New ID No : 999/2016                                  In the matter of : ­  1  Sh. Gajadhar Yadav 2  Sh. Gauri Shanker Dubey 3  Sh. Raju Saha 4  Sh. Ram Gopal 5  Sh. Ram Naresh Yadav 6  Sh. Ram Naresh Yadav­I 7  Sh. Nanku Singh 8  Sh. Hare Krishna, 9  Sh. Ramanand 10 Sh. Dilip Kumar 11 Sh. Naresh Paswan 12 Sh. Rajender Kumar Sharma 13 Sh. Ram Dayal Through :­ General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union, I­441, Karampura, New Delhi­15.                        ........Claimants / Workmen VERSUS        
(i)  M/s. Indo Plastic Industries
(ii) M/s. Unique Enterprises, Both at :­ WZ­27/19A, 1­2, Phool Bagh, Rampura, New Delhi­35.     ........ Managements                     Date of Institution            :   16.01.1999 Date of reserving award  :   14.12.2016 Date of pronouncement :   14.12.2016                A W A R D                                  1          A   reference   No.F­24(5840)/98­Lab./657­62   dated   08.01.1999   was ID No : 999/2016 Page No.1 of 5      received from the appropriate government for adjudication and disposal of an industrial   dispute   between   the   workmen   and   the   management   with   the following terms of reference :­     "Whether   the   services   of   S/Shri   Gajadhar   Yadav, Gauri Shanker Dubey, Raju Saha, Ram Gopal, Ram Naresh Yadav, Ram Naresh Yadav­I, Nanku Singh, Hare   Krishna,   Ramanand,   Dilip   Kumar,   Naresh Paswan,   Rajender  Kumar  Sharma   and   Ram   Dayal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled   and   what   directions   are   necessary   in   this respect?"
2 A notice of the aforesaid reference was sent to the workmen for filing of their statement of claims.   The workmen Gajadhar Yadav, Gauri Shanker Dubey, Raju Saha, Ram Gopal, Ram Naresh Yadav, Hare Kishan, Ramanand, Dilip   Kumar,   Naresh   Paswan,   Rajender   Kumar   Sharma   and   Ram   Dayal appeared and filed their joint statement of claim on 09.07.1999,  wherein they stated that they were working under the management at posts and dates more specifically   mentioned   as   under   and   that   their   services   were   terminated   on dates also mentioned hereunder :­  Sr. Name   of Posts Salary Date   of Date   of No. workmen appointment termination 1 Gajadhar Machineman 2103 01.02.1992 28.08.1998 Yadav 2 Gauri   Shanker Helper 1937 02.01.1997 28.08.1998 Dubey 3 Raju Shaha Helper 1937 03.02.1989 28.08.1998 4 Ram Gopal Helper 1937 15.02.1990 28.08.1998 5 Ram   Naresh Machineman 2103 03.01.1996 18.08.1998 Yadav ID No : 999/2016 Page No.2 of 5      6 Hare Kishan Helper 1937 27.03.1995 28.08.1998 7 Ramanand Machineman 2103 24.01.1996 28.08.1998 8 Dilip Kumar Machineman 2361 26.02.1992 18.08.1998 9 Naresh Paswan Helper 1937 23.03.1994 28.08.1998 10 Rajender Machineman 2103 25.04.1989 18.08.1998 Kumar Sharma 11 Ram Dayal Helper 1937 01.02.1996 18.08.1998 The workmen prayed that management be directed to reinstate them in service with full back wages and with continuity of services.  
  
3 The management No.1 and 2 were duly served with the notice of the claimfiled on behalf of abovementioned workmen and contested the claim of the workmen by filing their separate detailed written statements.
4 The workmen filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made by them in   the   petition   and   controverting   the   contra   averments   made   by   the managements in their replies.
5 On   25.02.2000   following   issues   were   framed   for   adjudication   and disposal of the case :­ "To what relief if any is the workman entitled against the   management   in   terms   of   reference   and   list   of witnesses and documents be filed by the parties on the next date ?" 

6 Thereafter   both   the   parties   led   their   respective   evidence.     The matter is at present at the stage of final arguments.  Today i.e. on 14.12.2016 AR for all the 13 workmen appeared before the Court and stated that workman Nanku Singh and Ram Naresh Yadav­I had not filed their statement of claim and that workmen Dalip Kumar Yadav and Ram Dayal had also settled their ID No : 999/2016 Page No.3 of 5      dispute with the management on 07.12.2016.  He further stated that workmen Gauri Shankar, Raju Saha and Gajadhar had also settled their dispute with the management   during   mediation   proceedings   dated   04.09.2008   and   their statements in this regard had been recorded before the learned Mediator on the said date.  The AR for workmen further affirmed the fact that workmen Ram Gopal,   Ram   Naresh   Yadav,   Hare   Kishan,   Ramanand,   Naresh   Paswan   and Rajender  had   already   settled  their  dispute  with   the   management   during   the pendency of the case.  

7 Statement   of   Shri   Neeraj   Chaudhary,   AR   for   workmen,   was recorded separately.

8 File   perused.     The   workmen   Dilip   Kumar   Yadav   and   Shri   Ram Dayal   had   appeared   on   07.12.2016   on   which   date   they   were   paid   settled amount   of   Rs.45,000/­   each,   by   Shri   Satish   Chander,   Proprietor   of   the management No.2 towards full and final settlement of all the claims made by the said two workmen, against management No.1 and 2, in the instant case.  

9 In view of the settlement of claims of workmen Dilip Kumar Yadav, Ram Dayal, Ram Gopal, Ram Naresh Yadav, Hare Kishan, Ramanand, Naresh Paswan,   Rajender,   Gauri   Shankar,   Raju   Saha   and   Gajadhar   Yadav   by   the managements,  a settlement  award  is  passed in  respect of claims  raised  by these workmen.

10 The workman Nanku Singh and Ram Naresh Yadav­I neither filed their statement of claim nor appeared before the Court after reference of the dispute to the Court and hence they are not entitled to any relief in the present case and a no dispute award is passed in respect of the said workmen.

Reference stands answered accordingly.

ID No : 999/2016 Page No.4 of 5     

A copy of the same be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.

     

Announced in the open Court                 (ILLA RAWAT) On 14th December, 2016                                   POLC­V:KKD:DELHI  ID No : 999/2016 Page No.5 of 5