Delhi District Court
Sriniwas Singh vs M/S Sanjay Textiles on 16 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISHA TRIPATHY
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLCT13-004465-2021
LC No.341/2021
Shriniwas Singh, S/o Sh. Damodar Singh,
(Aged about 52 years), Mobile No.9899848679,
Adhar Card No.2725 6347 0660,
R/o Mahalaxmi Enclave, Karwal Nagar,
Delhi - 110094.
Through Sh. A. K. Bansal, Advocate,
Secretary : All India Foodgrain Kirana
Chemical and General Works Federation (Regd.),
100, Tilak Bazar, Delhi - 110006.
Mobile No.9899848679.
The requisite details of the workman in compliance of 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
16.07.2021 are as follows:
Permanent Address of the workman:
Detail not furnished.
Any other address of workman available on record:
House No.108, Gali No.3A, Mahalaxmi Enclave,
Karwal Nagar, Delhi - 110094.
Name and Mobile Number of A.R. for workman:
Sh. S. K. Bansal and Sh. Sanjeev Bansal,
Mobile Number : 9899848679.
Details of one of immediate family member of the workman:
Detail not furnished.
Aadhar Card and Phone Number of workman:
Adhar Card No.2725 6347 0660
Mobile No. Details not provided. ...Workman.
(LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.1 of pages 13
MANISHA Digitally signed by
MANISHA TRIPATHY
TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16
16:36:43 +0530
Versus
M/s Sanjay Textiles,
844-A, Krishna Cloth Market,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006.
Owner Sh. Sanjay Mendiratta.
(Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, Ld. AR for the management,
Ch. No.5, Lawyers Chambers, Saket, Delhi.
Mobile No.9811556976 & 9811055446).
...Management.
Date of Institution of the case : 25.11.2021.
Date on which order is passed : 16.09.2023.
-:O R D E R:-
1.By this order I shall dispose off the present petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date) filed by the applicant / claimant Sh. Sriniwas Singh S/o Sh. Damodar Singh against the management.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the present application as alleged by claimant are that he had been working with the management since 21.07.1992 on the post of helper at the last drawn monthly wages of Rs.14,500/- and he worked honestly and diligently to the entire satisfaction of management and had clean service record. The management did not provide labour facilities such as appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, pay slip, annual leave, casual leave, overtime allowance and the prevailing minimum wages etc. and on his oral demands for these legal facilities, the management first started harassing him and thereafter, when he persisted with his demands for these legal facilities, it started to withhold his earned wages and kept on taking work from him giving (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.2 of pages 13 MANISHA Digitally signed by MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:36:53 +0530 false assurances. When he insisted for release of withheld wages, he was terminated from the services on 15.10.2021 without clearing his due wages. Thereafter, on 08.01.2021 he sent a Demand Notice to the management, through speed post, but the management did not reply to the same. He prayed for direction to management to pay outstanding earned wages, overtime allwance, leave allowance, minimum wages and arrears of minmum wages alongwith interest to him, as per calculation chart below:-
Sl. No. Particulars Amount
1 Earned wages:-
From 01.06.2021 to 15.10.2021 @
Rs.14,500/- per month. Rs.65,250/-
2 Overtime wages :-
From 01.06.2021 to 15.10.2021
(double the monthly wages for 4
hours per day) at the rate of
Rs.14,500/- per month. Rs.65,250/-
3 Yearly leave allowance:-
45 days of paid annual leave for three
years (15 days per year) at the rate of Rs.21,750/-
Rs.14,500/- per month.
4 Bonus:-
Applicable minimum bonus for three
years at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per Rs.43,500/-
month.
5 Arrears of minimum wages for the
last six months:-
(i) From 01.12.2020 to 31.03.2021
(LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.3 of pages 13
Digitally signed by
MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY
TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16
16:37:02 +0530
(as per minimum wages Rs.15,492/-)
less Rs.14,500/- = Rs.992 X 4 =
Rs.3968/-
Rs.3,968/-
(ii) From 01.04.2021 to 31.05.2021
(as per minimum wages Rs.15,908/-)
less Rs.14,500/- = Rs.1,408/- X 2 =
Rs.2,816/- Rs.2,816/-
TOTAL Rs.2,02,534/-
2. Notice of the application was issued to management. Management appeared through its Authorized Representative Sh. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and filed its Written Statement.
3. In its Written Statement, while denying the claim of the workman, management stated that the claimant has not approached the court with clean hands as he has presented the wrong facts that he was working with the management since 1992. It stated that in the year 1992, Sh. Sanjay Mediratta, owner of the management firm, was a student of B.A. Pass (1st year) and after completion of his graduation, he started the business of garments under the name M/s Sanjay Garments in the year 2000. It denied that the claimant was working with the management as helper since 21.07.1992 or that he was drawing salary of Rs.14,500/- per month and stated that the claimant never worked as an employee of the management, rather, he was working as a 'Pandey' in the open market as freelancer and used to deliver the items of management to other places and vise versa as and when needed. It further stated that the present case has been filed by the claimant only to extort money from the management as there has never been relationship of employer and employee between the (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.4 of pages 13 Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:37:14 +0530 claimant and the management. It further stated that since the claimant was never an employee of the management, question of entitlement of legal facilities like appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, pay slip, yearly and casual leaves, overtime money and the prevailing minimum etc.; question of stopping the earned wages and his entitlement of any kind of salary, overtime, bonus etc. does not arise. It also stated that management never received any Demand Notice from the claimant. It further denied the claimant's entitlement to the tune of Rs.2,02,534/- or any amount whatsoever.
4. In rejoinder to the Written Statement of the management, all the averments of the management were denied and that of Statement of claim were reaffirmed by the claimant.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 11.10.2022 the following issues were framed:-
(i). Whether there exists relationship of employee and employer in between the parties to the present claim petition? (OPW).
(ii). Whether the services of the workman have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management on 15.10.2021. If so, whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential reliefs as prayed for by the workman in his claim petition?
(OPW).
(iii). Relief, if any.
6. Thereafter, workman led his evidence and stepped into the (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.5 of pages 13 MANISHA Digitally signed by MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:37:22 +0530 witness box as WW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein he reiterated on oath the averments made in his application. He relied on the following documents:-
(i). Office copy of Demand Notice dated 08.11.2021 Ex.WW1/1;
(ii). Original Postal Receipts for dispatch of Demand Notice Ex.WW1/2; and
(iii). Copy of Adhar Card of claimant Ex.WW1/3.
7. The claimant was cross examined by Ld. AR for the management and discharged. Thereafter, workman evidence was closed and case was fixed for management evidence.
8. Management opted not to lead any evidence in support of its case and accordingly, management evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
9. Vide order dated 13.09.2023, issues were reframed as under:-
(i). Whether the claim made in the present application under Section 33 C (2) of I.D. Act filed by the workman is maintainable? OPW.
(ii). Whether the workman is entitled to the benefits claimed in the instant application? OPW.
(iii). Relief, if any.
10. After reframing of issues, it was jointly submitted by Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties that the evidence already led in the matter was adequate and sufficient and the same may be read while deciding the issues reframed by the Court. As the parties (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.6 of pages 13 Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:37:31 +0530 opted not to lead any additional evidence pursuant to reframinng of issues, arguments were heard in the matter on the same day.
11. I have heard the submissions made by Ld. ARs for both the parties, carefully perused the entire material place on record and given my thoughtful consideration to the same.
12. My issue wise findings are as under:-
13. ISSUE No.1:-
Whether the claim made in the present application under Section 33 C (2) of I.D. Act filed by the workman is maintainable? OPW.
13.1 The maintainability of the present application u/s 33 C(2) of the Act has been challenged by the management.
13.2 It has been submitted on behalf of the management that the claimant has never been its employee and no employer-employee relationship ever existed between the claimant and the management and as such until and unless this disputed question of relationship is adjudicated in a separate claim under s. 2A or s. 10 (4) (A) of the act and a finding is returned in such proceedings, no claim of money/ benefit is maintainable by the claimant against management under proceedings under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
13.3 At this stage, it will be useful to have a look at the relevant provision of law, which is reproduced herein below for easy reference:-
"Section 33C : Recovery of Money Due from an Employer -
(1) x x x (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.7 of pages 13 Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:37:39 +0530 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 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).
(3) x x x (4) x x x (5) x x x"
13.4 In Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar & ors. (1968) 1 SCR 140 Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the ambit and scope of section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and made following pertinent observations:-
"It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer..."
13.5 The decision was thereafter followed by Hon'ble Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Workmen (1974) 4 SCC 696. The relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced herein below :-
"12. It is now well-settled that a proceeding under section 33C (2) is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.8 of pages 13 MANISHA Digitally signed by MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:37:48 +0530 money, the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being previously adjudged, or, otherwise, duly provided for. In Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar & ors., it was reiterated that proceedings under 33C (2) are analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by workmen is in such cases in the Position of an executing court. It was also reiterated that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer."
"13. In a suit, a claim for relief made by the plaintiff against the defendant involves an investigation directed to the determination of
(i) the plaintiff's right to relief; (ii) the corresponding liability of the defendant, including, whether the defendant is, at all, liable or not; and (iii) the extent of the defendant's liability, if any. The working out of such liability with a view to give relief is generally regarded as the function of an execution proceeding. Determination No.
(iii) referred to above, that is to say, the extent of the defendant's liability may sometimes be left over for determination in execution proceedings. But that is not the case with the determinations under heads (i) and (ii). They are normally regarded as the functions of a suit and not an execution proceeding. Since a proceeding under section 33C (2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding it should follow that an (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.9 of pages 13 Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:37:57 +0530 investigation of the nature of determinations
(i) and (ii) above is, normally, outside its scope. It is true that in a proceeding under section 33C (2), as in an execution proceeding, it may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom the claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. But that is merely 'Incidental'. To call determinations (i) and
(ii) 'Incidental' to an execution proceeding would be a perversion, because execution proceedings in which the extent of liability is worked out are just consequential upon the determinations (i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief.
Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. It was, therefore, held in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under section 33C (2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately the subject matter of an industrial dispute which requires a reference under Section 10 of the Act."
(LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.10 of pages 13
Digitally signed by
MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY
TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16
16:38:07 +0530
13.6 The law pronounced in the above said judgment has since
been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Court in later decisions. In Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak, 1995 SCC (1) 235 the legal principal on the issue was summed up as follows :-
" ..where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being, no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under section 33C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution."
13.7 Now I shall examine the facts of the present case in light of the settled legal position as stated above. In the instant case, the claimant has claimed that he has worked as employee of management w.e.f. 21.07.1992 as a helper continuously till the date of his alleged termination of services on 15.10.2021. Management has claimed that it never had any kind of employer-employee relationship with the claimant for any period whatsoever and as such had no liability whatsoever to pay any amount to the claimant towards earned wages, (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.11 of pages 13 Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:38:14 +0530 bonus, leave wages, over time and arrears of minimum wages or otherwise. Management claimed that it was only in the year 2000 that the Proprietor of the management started his business and as such there was no question of the claimant being his employee w.e.f. 21.07.1992. Even otherwise, the claimant was never an employee of management at any point of time and was working as 'Pandey' / loader in the market as a freelancer. Thus, there is apparent dispute on the issue of relationship between the claimant and the management as well as entitlement of the claimant to receive any amount from the management. There is nothing on record to suggest that prior to filing of the present application, the claimant has ever raised any Industrial Dispute against the management to get the disputed question of relationship as well as entitlement to the benefits claimed by him adjudicated by the competent authority in appropriate proceedings. The claimant has failed to show any pre- existing right as defined in Section 33 (c) 2 of the I.D. Act, 1947 as admittedly there is no earlier adjudication in form of award or settlement or recognition by the employer to the benefits claimed by him. In view of the well settled position of law discussed above, this court doesn't have jurisdiction to first decide the claimant's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under section 33C(2) of the Act. Therefore, I hold that the present application/ petition filed by the claimant u/s 33-C(2) of the ID Act, 1947 is not maintainable. Resultantly, issue is decided against the claimant.
14. -: Issue No.2 & 3:-
(ii). Whether the workman is entitled to the benefits claimed in the instant application? OPW.
(LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.12 of pages 13 Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:38:23 +0530
(iii). Relief.
14.1 In view of my finding on issue no.1, the claimant is not entitled to any benefit or relief against the management.
15. The application filed by the claimant under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date) is accordingly dismissed.
16. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by(Announced in the open MANISHA MANISHA TRIPATHY Court on 16.09.2023) TRIPATHY Date: 2023.09.16 16:38:31 +0530 (MANISHA TRIPATHY) Presiding Officer Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (LC No.341/2021) (Shriniwas Singh Vs. M/s Sanjay Textiles) Page No.13 of pages 13