Delhi District Court
Sh. Bhagwan Singh vs M/S Skypak Services Specialists Ltd on 21 November, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SHRI T. S. KASHYAP :
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURTXIX :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID529/05)
SH. BHAGWAN SINGH
S/o Sh. R. P. Singh,
Through : U.P. L. F., 8/440,
Trilokpuri, Delhi110091. ...............................................WORKMAN
Vs.
1.M/S SKYPAK SERVICES SPECIALISTS LTD.
2. M/S ESSEE COURIERS INTRA CITY SERVICE.
LB35, Tolstoy House, 17, Tolstoy Marg,
New Delhi 110001, &
L357, Mahipalpur Extension,
New Delhi. .......................................MANAGEMENTS
Date of institution of the case : 22.12.05
Date of conclusion of arguments : 03.11.09
Date of passing the order : 21.11.09
A W A R D
This Statement of Claim u/s. 10 (4 A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') has been filed by LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 1 of 8 pages workman Sh. Bhagwan Singh against the management of M/s. Skypack Services Specialists Ltd. with the prayer for direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity of service alongwith full back wages submitting that he was appointed by the management as Courier and was confirmed on 17.01.2002. However, he has alleged that management was not paying Dearness Allowances as per orders issued by the Delhi Govt. and has alleged that management was cheating workman and Govt. with respect to ESIC and PF benefits. According to him, Union was formed and got registered by the workers and union representative were declared as protective workmen by the management. Union made demads against the management and workmen went on agitation but the management refused employment to all the workmen barring 10 union persons due to interference of Conciliation Offer. Management issued chargesheet and suspension letters and started giving suspension allowance. He submitted the reply but the management was not satisfied and LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 2 of 8 pages constituted enquiry appointing an Enquiry Officer which was opposed by the workman. He lodged the complaint with Conciliation Officer where the conciliation proceedings were going on and the requisite permission from the Conciliation Officer was not obtained by the management. However, he has alleged that the management terminated his service vide letter dated 24.12.04 and thereafter he filed complaint before the Conciliation Officer on 24.05.05 and Conciliation Officer directed the workman to file his claim before the competent court. Workman has alleged that the termination without permission of Conciliation Officer was illegal and unjustifiable. Hence, the claim.
2. Management contested the claim by filing writtenstatement denying the allegations of workman in claim to which workman also filed rejoinder. Subsequently, management No. 1 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 06.04.09. Management No. 2 was served by affixation and was proceeded by my learned predecessor exparte on 16.05.08.
LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 3 of 8 pages
3. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 11.07.07 :
1. Whether services of the workman had been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably ?
2. Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed.
4. In support of his claim, workman has tendered his affidavit Exb. WW1/X corroborating the averments made in the claim and relied on the documents Exb. WW1/1 to Exb.WW1/13. Crossexamination of the workman was deferred on 06.04.09 for half an hour due to absence of management No. 1 but no one appeared to crossexamine the witness and the management was thereafter proceeded exparte.
5. I have heard the arguments from learned AR for workman and gone through the record and my findings on both the issues are as under :
6. Learned AR for workman has submitted that the testimony of LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 4 of 8 pages workman has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. He has submitted that the workman has already approached the Conciliation Officer and in terms of provisions of Sec. 33 of the 'Act', management could not change service conditions of workman without permission of the Conciliation Officer and therefore, order of dismissal/ termination of services of workman by the management was illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
Although, the testimony of WW1 has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged, but with due respect, I am not in agreement with the submission made by learned AR for workman. Workman has proved on record the documents, such as copy of appointment letter Exb. WW1/1 wherein employment of the workman was as per terms and conditions of employment. He also relied on copy of registration of union Exb. WW1/II, copy of declaration as protected workmen Exb. WW1/III, copy of suspension order dated 12.07.03 Exb. WW1/IV, copy of chargesheet LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 5 of 8 pages dated 07.10.03 Exb. WW1/V, copy of reply Exb. WW1/VI, copy of order dated 29.10.03 regarding appointment of Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry Exb. WW1/VII, copy of his letter dated 05.11.03 Exb. WW1/VIII. However, he has also relied on copy of application u/s. 33 A of the 'Act' purported to have been written on 20.10.03 which is Exb. WW1/IX to show that conciliation proceedings were already going on before Conciliation Officer. However, he has not summoned the record nor examined any official witness from the office of Conciliation Officer to prove that the proceedings were still pending before Conciliation Officer. He admits that vide letter dated 24.12.04 (copy of which is Exb. WW1/X), services of workman were terminated by the management. He has placed on record letter dated 05.10.05 from Conciliation Officer Exb. WW1/XIII and it has been submitted that since conciliation proceedings were already going on, the management in terms of provisions of Sec. 33 of the 'Act', could not change his service conditions and could not either suspend or dismiss workman by way of holding an enquiry. LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 6 of 8 pages However, a perusal of Exb.WW1/XII relied by the workman shows that the letter No. LO70/05/Sahayak Shram Aayukt/ Dakshin Paschim/ 2434, dated 05.10.05 was issued on the basis of the application of the workman dated 24.05.05 and has no reference of the letter dated 20.10.03 Exb. WW1/IX and therefore, there is no reason to believe that letter dated 05.10.05 Exb. WW1/XII was issued by the Conciliation Officer pursuant to any conciliation proceedings or on the basis of letter dated 20.10.03 Exb. WW1/IX. Therefore, it cannot be said that either on the date of issue of suspension order/letter dated 12.07.03 Exb. WW1/IV, day of issue of chargesheet dated 07.10.03 Exb. WW1/V, dated 29.10.03 Exb. WW1/VII when enquiry officer was appointed and upto the termination order dated 24.12.04 Exb. WW1/XI, any conciliation proceedings were pending before Conciliation Officer and therefore, provisions of sec. 33 of the 'Act' were not attracted and there was no bar for the management to hold any enquiry without permission of the Conciliation Officer. Admittedly, management has conducted a domestic LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 7 of 8 pages enquiry of which the workman had due notice but he did not participate in the enqruiry and his services were terminated vide letter dated 24.12.04 Exb. WW1/XI. The management has terminated the services of the workman after holding enquiry and inflicted punishment on the basis of findings on the enquiry and therefore, issue is decided in favour of the management. As such, it is held that workman is not entitled for the relief as prayed.
7. Claim is disposed of accordingly. Copy of award be sent for publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 21 Day of November, 2009 st (T. S. KASHYAP) PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURTXIX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
LIR/D No. 968/06 (Old No. ID 529/05) Page 8 of 8 pages