Delhi District Court
Permanent Address Of The vs Ex. Serviceman Air Link Transport ... on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN :-
LCA NO. 105/2016 (OLD ID No. 102/2009)
Shri Mahesh Chand
S/o Shri Mahender Singh
R/o H. No. A-1/90, Suraksha Vihar,
Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
(The requisite details of the workman in compliance to judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Director General of Works (CPWD)
Vs. Laljeet Yadav & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 2540/2021, DOD 16.07.21 are as
follows:
Permanent Address of the Workman
H. No. A-1/90, Suraksha Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-
110059.
Present Address of the Workman:
H. No. A-1/90, Suraksha Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-
110059.
Name and Mobile Number of A.R for Workman:
Details not furnished.
Details of one of immediate family member of the Workman
Details not furnished.
AADHAR Card Number of workman and Phone No.
Details not furnished.
.....Workman
VERSUS
1.Ex. Serviceman Air link Transport service Ltd. 62 Yashwant Palace, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021 LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 1 of 9
2. Container Corporation of India Ltd.
International Container Depot,
Tuglakabad,
New Delhi-110020. .....Managements
Date of Institution : 13.08.2009
Date of Arguments : 20.07.2022
Date of Award : 30.07.2022
AWARD
1. Workman has filed the present application under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 with the prayer that management be directed to pay the workman balance amount of Rs. 18,086/-.
2. The brief facts of the case of the workman as stated in the application is that he was appointed as security guard w.e.f. 01.11.2002 and his last drawn salary were Rs. 6,000/- per month. He further stated that he was appointed by management no.1 and worked with management no. 2. He further stated that management paid house rent to other security guards, who were appointed by management, but management did not pay house rent to him from March 2005 to July 2005 @ 10% and from August 2005 to June 2008 @ 15%. It is further stated by workman that on his repeated demands management paid him Rs. 2,900/- as house rent from October 2006 to December 2006 and January 2007. It is further stated by him that he demanded balance amount of house rent and bonus from management, but management did not pay any heed to LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 2 of 9 their demand and did not pay their balance amount. It is further submitted by the workman that 18,086/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand, Eighty Six only) may be paid to him by the management.
3. In their written statement it is stated by the management No. 1 that there is no statutory liability on the part of the management to pay HRA and management had paid payments to the workman in compliance of the Minimum Wages stipulated in the DGR Guidelines.
4. In their written statement it is stated by the management No. 2 that there is no employee/employer relationship with the management, hence the present application is not maintainable.. It is further submitted by management No. 2 that on 01.02.2006, management no. 2 entered into an agreement with management no. 1 to provide workman only on contractual basis for surveillance and operation of the fire fighting system, traffic regulation, control over movement/ cargo and record thereof. It is further submitted by management no. 2 that as per the Contract, management no. 1 used to raise bills on or after 5tth day of each English calender month and management no. 2 used to clear all such bills for the workman employed with them. It is further prayed by the management that the statement of claim filed by the workman may be dismissed.
5. In his rejoinder to the written statement of management, the workman has reiterated the averments made in the claim statement and has denied all the allegations leveled against him by the LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 3 of 9 management.
6. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for trial vide order dated 13.10.2011:-
(1) Whether the application under Section 33 C(2) I D Act is maintainable? (2) Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, the workman has examined himself as WW-1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW-1/A bearing his signature at point A and B and documents marked as Marj A to Mark C.
8. The workman has been cross-examined by AR for the management no. 1 and 2. In his cross-examination by management no. 1, it is admitted by workman that management no. 1 issued an appointment letter to him at the time of his appointment with the management no. 1. He denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not filed the appointment letter on record. It is also denied by him that appointment letter and movement order are different documents.
He further deposed in his cross-examination that they were informed by management no. 1 that they will be paid emoluments as per DGR Wage Chart. It is also admitted by him that in the Wage LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 4 of 9 Chart, HRA head is also mentioned. It is also admitted by him that there was no written agreement between him and the management no. 1 for paying additional HRA , except the HRA mentioned in the DGR Wage Chart. It is further deposed by him in his cross- examination that he had no knowledge whether the additional HRA paid to him by the management no. 1 was not reimbursed by the management no. 2 to the management no. 1.
In his cross-examination by management no. 2, it is deposed by workman that he did not remember the exact dates of his tenure of deployment with management no. 2. It is further deposed by him that he had worked continuously with management no. 2 during his complete tenure of service with management no. 1 under their instructions. He denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to claim any amount from management no. 2.
9. The management has also examined Shri K K Khurana as MW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW-1/A bearing his signature at point A and B. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of Board Resolution is Ex.MW-1/1 and copy of appointment letter is Ex. MW-1/2. He has been cross-examined by AR for the workman.
In his cross-examination, it is submitted by the MW-1 that he had been working with the management for the last 15 years. He has brought the DGR Wages Chart from 1st February 2004 to October 2008 which is Ex. MW-1/W-1. It is deposed by MW-1 in his cross- LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 5 of 9 examination that salary of workman in the year 2004 was as per page 1 of Ex. MW-1/W-1. It is further deposed by MW-1 that HRA was paid to the workman for the four months in the year 2007 and HRA was not paid to the workman on the directions of either DGR or management no. 2. It is also deposed by MW-1 in his cross- examination that prior to the contract dated 1 st February 2006, they had a contract running since the year 2002 and the workman was also working with them and deployed at management no. 2 prior to 1st February 2006 . It is also admitted by MW-1 that no suitable accommodation was given to the workman either by management no. 2 or management no. 1 during his tenure of service. He denied the suggestion that workman was entitled to HRA as claimed by him.
10. Management also examined Shri Hemant Sahni as MW-2 who tendered his affidavit as MwW-1/A which bears his signatures at point 'A' and 'B'.
In his cross-examination, it is deposed by M2W-1 that workman was deployed to work with management no. 2 since February 2006 when the agreement between management no. 1 and 2 was executed. It is admitted by him that management no. 2 was the principal employer of the workman for the period from February 2006 to 30.06.2008. It is also admitted by him that the salary and other benefits were paid to the workman as per the rates mentioned in the DGR chart issued from time to time. It is further deposed by him that it is not in his knowledge that HRA was paid to the workman for four months in the year 2007.
LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 6 of 9 It is further admitted by him that no accommodation was given to the workman by the management no. 2 during his deployment with the management no. 2. He denied the suggestion that despite entitlement of the workman to receive the HRA, the management no. 2 did not pay the same to the workman and illegally deducted that amount from his payable salary.
11. I have heard the final arguments of authorized representatives of the workman as well as managements. My findings on the issues are as under:-
(1) Whether the application under Section 33 C(2) I D Act is maintainable?
12. During arguments no submissions have been made with respect to the question as to the maintainability of the application and not even one objection has been raised and substantiated by A.R for management no. 1 and 2 regarding maintainability of the application. As such this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
13. Section 33 C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act reads as under :-
"Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 7 of 9 computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months:
provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so it do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit."
14. From perusal of section, it is evident that an application under Section 33 C (2) can be filed when an employee is entitled to receive any money or for computation of benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. In this case workman is claiming amount which according to him is illegally deducted by management from his salary/bonus, thus same is due towards him.
15. According to HRA rules, HRA would be paid to all the employees other than those provided with owned/hired accommodation. According to HRA rules, an employee is not entitled to HRA, when workman shares a rent free accommodation alloted to another employee, when he resides in an accommodation alloted to him by the management or when his spouse has been alloted accommodation by the Government. So far as the present case is concerned, since admittedly, workman was not provided any owned or hired accommodation, therefore his case is not covered by any of the exceptions above and HRA cannot be denied to the workman. Further, in the present case workman has filed the claim LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 8 of 9 petition under Section 33 C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act for claiming his dues for the period when he was in service with the management and he is claiming HRA for relevant period of his services. It is condition in the payment of wages in amendment agreement for security services that 15% HRA will be payable to the workman in case service is not provided by the management. The said action of the management is absolutely illegal and against the provisions of law. MW 1 has admitted in his cross examination as under :
"It is correct that no suitable accommodation was given to the workman either by the management no. 2 or management no. 1 during his tenure of service with us".
16. Accordingly, workman is entitled for the relief claimed.
Relief :
17. It is accordingly held that the workman is entitled to recover Rs. 18,086/- from the management no. 1 and 2. The payment shall be made within 30 days from today failing which the ordered amount shall be payable with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till its realisation. Award is passed accordingly. Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC. Copy of the Award be also sent delivered to the concerned department through electronic mode or through Dak. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court.
Dated : July 30, 2022. (MUKESH KUMAR) Presiding Officer Labour Court Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi LCA No. 105/2016 Mahesh Chand vs Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. Page No. 9 of 9