Delhi District Court
Between The vs The on 26 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. XVI, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
LIR No. 8220/16
Date of institution 27.05.2016
Date of decision 26.11.2018
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Amit Dabas,
S/o Sh. Bhagwan,
Aged about 42 years,
Employee Code: 210816,
R/o H.No. 538,
V&PO Puth Khurd, Delhi-110039.
Through:-
Sh. Markandey Shukla,
Jagriti Labour Union,
5/511, Sangam vihar,
Wazirabad, Delhi-110054.
VERSUS
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s Centralised Accident & Trauma Services,
(An Autonomus Body of Govt. Of NCT of Delhi),
Yamuna Pusta, Bela Road, Near Vijay Ghat,
Delhi-110006.
AWARD
1.By this award I shall dispose off the claim of the claimant under LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 1 of 24 Section 2-A (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In his statement of claim, claimant has stated that he has been working with the management since 01.06.2013 as Ambulance Driver at the last drawn salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month. The workman did his duty with honesty and sincerity and did not give any chance of complaint to the management. Consequent thereto, no allegations have been made upon the workman while serving the management. He submitted that the management has not been providing the legal facilities nor the service record have been provided to him completely. Workman has been demanding orally, but the management has not cared. He submits that he has framed Union of which he is the hard worker. Due to which, the management got annoyed and issued a letter to him on 08.01.2016 mentioning the negligence upon him while on 08.01.2016 he was posted on duty. The letter dated 08.02.2016 mentioning the termination of his services is wrong which has been replied by the workman on 30.01.2016 through courier. He had lodged a complaint in the labour office. He further submitted that the workman has not been paid the salary of Rs. 01.01.2016 till 08.02.2016. he had sent the demand notice to the management on 11.02.2016 asking the management to pay his earned wages and take him back on duty, but LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 2 of 24 the management had not replied the same. He submitted that he is unemployed since the date of his termination. He had lodged his claim before the conciliation officer, but the management had not taken any interest there and failure report has been given by the Conciliation Officer. He has made prayer that he be given reinstatement with full back wages.
2. Management had appeared and filed the written statement. In his written statement, he had taken the preliminary objections stating that the claim of the claimant is not maintainable as the management is not a industry as defied under the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed. He further stated that the claim of the claimant is not maintainable as the claimant is not the worker as defined under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He stated that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimant. Hence, the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the claimant is not maintainable as the claimant is not a permanent employee of the management. The services of the claimant were engaged purely on contract basis as Ambulance LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 3 of 24 Driver under NRHM Scheme. The management has specifically mentioned in the advertisement and it is also admitted by the claimant that the claimant worked on contract basis. The claimant had executed an agreement with the management dated 07.06.2013 to work on contract basis as Ambulance Driver on a consolidated payment of Rs. 11,000/- per month. Thereafter, a fresh agreement had been executed on 07.04.2014 wherein the claimant had agreed to work as contract Ambulance Driver w.e.f. 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014. The aforesaid contract agreement had been extended for a period of six months upto 31.07.2015 on the same terms and conditions. Further, the monthly remuneration of the claimant had been increased from Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- w.e.f. 01.11.2015. After 31.07.2015, the contract of all contractual Ambulance Driver had been renewed w.e.f. 01.08.2015 to 31.03.2016 in the month of January, 2016. However, the claimant continued to work as contract Ambulance Driver on the same terms and conditions and continued to draw salary as per the existing contract. The claimant has duly accepted and acknowledged the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the claimant having been served disengagement notice on 08.01.2016, giving him thirty days notice period. He further submitted that as per clause 9 LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 4 of 24 (C) of the contract, the agreement can be terminated by giving one month written notice by either party of the said agreement. The action taken by the management was absolutely justified and lawful. He further submitted that the case of the claimant has not been espoused by the number of the claimants and the reference as well as the resultant proceedings are bad in law and are liable to be rejected being without proper espousal by the claimant as required under the law. He further submitted that the claimant has been paid upto 20.01.2016, since the claimant had performed his duty only upto 20.01.2016. He submitted that the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder has also been filed by the workman wherein he had reiterated the averments claimed by him in his statement of claim and denied whatever has been stated by the management in the written statement.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 06.06.2017, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the services of the claimant have been terminated LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 5 of 24 illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management? OPW.
2. Whether there exist no relationship of employer and employee between the parties as the worker was engaged on contract basis under NRHM Scheme? OPW.
3. If so, to what relief claimant is entitled?
No other issue arose or pressed and the matter was listed for workman evidence.
5. In order to prove their respective contentions, both the workman and the management had examined their witnesses. Workman had examined himself as WW 1. In his affidavit of evidence, workman has reiterated the facts as mentioned by him in his statement of claim stating that he has been working with the management since 01.06.2013 as Ambulance Driver at the last drawn salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month and his services have been terminated illegally by the management on 08.02.2016 because the management had not held any enquiry and did the violation of Industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that Sh. A.S. Yadav, who is AAO had also been thrown out of job, but the management had retained him thereafter. He had relied upon the documents Ex. WW 1/1 to LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 6 of 24 Ex. WW 1/14. Ex. WW 1/1 is the coy of the legal notice, Ex. WW ½ is the demand notice dated 25.01.2016 given by hand, Ex. WW 1/3 is the copy of the notice dated 28.01.2016, Ex. WW ¼ is the copy of the notice dated 11.02.2016, Ex. WW 1/5 to Ex. WW 1/8 are the receipts of the notices sent above on different dates, Ex. WW 1/9 is the copy of the claim, Ex. WW 1/10 is the copy of the circular dated 01.02.2016, Ex. WW 1/11 is the copy of the offer letter dated 07.06.2013, Ex. W 1/12 is the copy of the notice for disengagement dated 08.01.2016, Ex. WW 1/13 is the copy of the list of provident fund and Ex. WW 1/14 is the copy of the interview letter.
6. This witness was put to the test of cross examination. He deposed that he is graduate and he had applied in 2013 with the management on the basis of advertisement published regarding requirements of driver for the CAT Ambulances. He admitted that in the advertisement, it was mentioned that the engagement of the driver and paramedical shall be purely on contract bases. He had joined the management on 07.06.2013. He further admitted that on the basis of contract Ex. WW 1/M1, he had joined the service as per terms and conditions of the contract Ex. WW1/M1. He had admitted his signature on Ex. WW 1/M1 at point A. LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 7 of 24 He deposed that the said contract was for a period of eleven months. He admitted that the fresh contract was also executed w.e.f 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 which is Ex. WW 1/M2. He admitted that all the ambulance driver and paramedicals who were engaged by the management were on contract basis and were paid the consolidated salary as per the contract. He further admitted that the consolidated amount of Rs. 11,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 13,000/- in the year 2015. He could not tell as to whether there is any permanent post of ambulance driver and paramedical with the management. He further admitted that the contractual driver and paramedical were engaged under the NRHM Scheme. He was aware that some grant were given under the aforesaid scheme for engaging driver and paramedical for ambulance. He was not aware that in the advertisement itself it was mentioned that the engagement by the management is only for contract and no person can claim permanent regularization from the management. He was not aware about the clause 9 of the contract Ex. WW 1/M1 & Ex. WW 1/M2 by which either of parties can terminate the contract by giving one months notice. He denied that management had issued a notice of termination of contract because he was not discharging his duty diligently and honestly and was found guilty LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 8 of 24 of professional misconduct and lapses. He denied that only for this reason his contract was not extended and terminated after one month's notice Ex. WW 1/12. He admitted that since 08.02.2016, he had not worked with the management. He denied that action taken by the management was in accordance with the procedure. He further denied that his termination by the management was legal and lawful and as per terms of contract. He further denied that since he was found not performing his duty as per the deployment as on 08.01.2016, he was supposed to be present at the CM residence for Janta Darbar, since he was not on duty therefor, the management had issued the notice of termination.
7. The management had examined one Satish Kumar as MW 1. He deposed that he is Assistant Ambulance Officer and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. Workman is not he worker as defined under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He deposed that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimant. He further deposed that the claimant is not the permanent employee of the management. The services of the claimant were engaged purely on contract basis as Ambulance Driver under LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 9 of 24 NRHM Scheme. He further deposed that the contract of all contractual Ambulance Drivers had been renewed w.e.f. 01.08.2015 to 31.03.2016 in the month of January, 2016. However, the claimant continued to work as contract Ambulance Driver on the same terms and conditions and continued to draw salary as per the existing contract. He further deposed that the claimant has duly accepted and acknowledged the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the claimant having been served disengagement notice on 08.01.2016, giving him thirty days notice period. However, he had continued to work on contract basis with the management upto 20.01.2016 even after service of disengagement notice w.e.f, 08.02.2016. He submitted that there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He had relied upon the documents Ex. WW 1/M1 and Ex. WW 1/M2 i.e., agreement and the documents.
8. This witness was put to the test of cross examination. He deposed that as per his knowledge, ESI and PF had been started to the contract ambulance drivers and para-medical w.e.f. 2015-16. Prior to that, no ESI and PF was given to them. The monthly consolidated amount was transferred by CATS Headquarter in the account of the worker through LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 10 of 24 NEFT. He was not having knowledge that general demand case is also pending before the Industrial Tribunal. He further deposed that in one ambulance, there is one driver, one para-medical remain present. The incharge in the ambulance is either para - medic and if there is a doctor then the doctor is the incharge in the ambulance. Earlier Assistant Ambulance Officer were incharge of the ambulance, however, the same has been continued since January, 2018. At that time, when the workman was ambulance driver, his AAO was Sh. A.B. Yadav. He denied that the workman was in continue in service with the management. He voluntarily stated that the workman worked on contract and after the completion of the contract period, fresh contract was entered for the specific period. He further admitted that the fresh contract has been entered with the workman after the expiry of the old contract from the next date. He denied that the workman has worked more than 240 days in all calendar years from 2013 to 2016. Since, there was no provision in contract to give any show cause notice, therefore they had not given any show cause notice to the workman. However, enquiry was conducted by the management during the notice period and thereafter the workman was found guilty and his contract was terminated. He had brought the record LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 11 of 24 of Inquiry Report regarding non reporting of CATS Ambulance on 08.01.2016, the photocopy of which is Ex. MW 1/W1. The ambulance no. N-15 in which workman was deployed was assigned to report every day at the residence of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi. He further stated that the workman's ambulance was Alpha 16 and since there was some technical fault, therefore, he was deployed on ambulance no. N-15. Ambulance Alpha 16 was permanently deployed at CM residence since February, 2015. In their office, no written orders were passed for deployment of ambulance and all the instructions were made on the wireless and the ambulances were instructed to report accordingly. As per his knowledge, the Control Room has all the written record regarding deployment of ambulances for a particular place. He had no personal knowledge as on 08.01.2016, the driver of the ambulance no. N-15 was available or not on that day. Without instruction, the ambulance cannot be removed or taken away. In case of regular deployment, the ambulance can be moved after informing the Control Room. The is no wireless recording available with the control room for the period 2016. He deposed that on 08.01.2016 along with workman, Sh. Amar Bahadur Yadav, AAO was on duty on ambulance N-15. The inqury against the LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 12 of 24 AAO is still pending. Since Sh. Amanr Bahadur Yadav, AAO is a regular employee, therefore the inquiry against him is under process as per the CCS Rules. He admitted that a notice has been served to the worker regarding his lapses for 08.01.2016 as per their contract. No other enquiry other than the inquiry report Ex. MW 1/W1 was conducted against the workman Sh. Amit Dabas. He denied that the workman was not given opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry. He brought the deployment order dated 23.04.2015 which is Ex. MW 1/W2 and also the copy of the deployment register by which the ambulance was deployed at the CM residence w.e.f. 23.04.2015 onwards and the photocopy of the same is Ex. MW 1/W3. He had no knowledge whether the telephone number mentioned in Ex. MW 1/W3 does not belong to the workman. He could not comment with regard to the RTI reply dated 17.02.2017 as the same is not been issued by CATS but by Delhi State Health Mission. The CATS is not come under the Delhi State Health Mission. He admitted that Mr. A.B. Yadav, Assistant Ambulance officer is still working with the management as he is a permanent employee. Enquiry proceedings are still pending against him as per the CCS Rules. He admitted that no charge sheet has been issued to the worker as he was not a permanent employee LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 13 of 24 as such no charge sheet was required. The management has conducted enquiry as per the contract terms and conditions and the workman was given opportunity in the said enquiry. He admitted that the worker was given one month's notice pay as per the contract. He had no knowledge whether the regularization case of the Ambulance driver is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
9. On behalf of the workman, his AR Sh. Kailash Johnwal had argued that since the workman has completed the service of three and half years with the management till his services were terminated, therefore, the workman has proved the fact that his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably as the management has not followed any of the provision prescribed under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submitted that the management has not conducted any departmental enquiry so that workman can be given punishment. Enquiry conducted by the management is nothing but an eye wash and no proper and fair enquiry has ever been conducted because the workman has never been given the opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the workman has proved his case that his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 14 of 24 the management.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the management Sh. Ashish Kumar has rebutted the arguments stating that the workman has not been a regular employee. He was a contractual employee and when this agreement have been executed with the claimant/ workman, it has been mentioned therein that engagement was purely on contract basis and this fact has been admitted by the workman in his evidence. Workman has stated that on the basis of contract Ex. MW 1/M1, he had joined the services on contract basis. He further admitted that MW 1/M1 bears his signature at point A in each of the pages. The said contract was for a period of one month. He further admitted that a fresh contract was also executed for a period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 and the said agreement is Ex. WW 1/M2. He further admitted that he had been paid consolidated amount of Rs. 11,000/- per month as per contract. He further drawn the attention of this court towards the cross examination of the workman wherein he has admitted that all the ambulance drivers and paramedicals who were engaged by the management were on contract basis and were paid the consolidated salary as per contract. He could not LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 15 of 24 tell as to how many persons were engaged on contract by the management. He admitted that the consolidated amount of Rs. 11,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 13,000/- in the year 2015. He could not tell as to whether there is any permanent post of ambulance driver and paramedical with the management. He admitted that the contract driver and paramedical were engaged under the NRHM Scheme. He further admitted that since 08.02.2016, he had not worked with the management. He further submitted that the management had held the enquiry about the negligence and lapses of the workman and he had been given one months' advance notice of his relieving. He further stated that the management has acted as per clause 9 (C) of the contract whereby both the parties have been empowered by giving one month's written notice to the other party or by giving to the other party one month's contractually agreed compensation in lieu of one month's notice period without assigning any reason. He further submitted that the workman Amit Dabas was disengaged on 08.02.2016 vide letter No. F1/580/CATS/2016/2016/78 dated 08.01.2016 and he was paid remuneration, since he had performed his duty only upto 20.01.2016.
LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 16 of 24
11. In the light of the above evidence and arguments, my issuewise findings are as under:-
12. Issue no. 1:-Whether the services of the claimant have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management? & Issue no. 2:- Whether there exist no relation of employer and employee between the parties as the worker was engaged on contract basis under NRHM Scheme? These are taken together as they are interlinked to each other. If the management succeeds in proving that there exists no relationship between the parties, then naturally the stand of the workman withered away because he cannot claim that his services have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably. Otherwise, workman will succeed that his services has been terminated illegally as management had admittedly not followed the provision of Industrial Disputes Act.
13. Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines the word retrenchment and the word retrenchment has defined under Industrial Disputes Act means the termination by the employer of the service of a LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 17 of 24 workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. First exception has been carved out by the Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act itself when it says that the workman had been terminated by way of punishment then he cannot be said to be retrenched. Other four exceptions are also carved out i.e., clause a, b, bb, c of the above said Section. First, if the workman had sought voluntary retirement. Secondly, retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of the employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf. Thirdly, termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein. Fourthly, termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.
14. Management had advanced his arguments on the plea centered around that the workman was disengaged from his services as per clause 9 (c) of the contract entered between the parties. He submitted that clause LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 18 of 24 9 of the contract has been admitted by the workman which has empowered either party to terminate the contract by giving one month's notice. Workman had been given one month's notice on 08.01.2016. He had been paid remuneration for his services performed upto 20.01.2016. Therefore, there is nothing illegality in terminating or disengaging the services of the workman. As such his case has been covered under Section 2 (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
15. Admittedly, there are number of contracts entered between the workman and the management. Es. MW 1/M1 and Ex. MW 1/M2 are the contract entered between the workman and the management wherein the contractual agreement for eleven months and thereafter for twelve months have been made. Different agreements have been constituted for three and half years and the salary had been increased thereof. There is stipulation in clause 9 (c) of the agreement of which the management has heavily relied that he can disengaged the service of the workman by giving one month's notice pay and he has been disengaged accordingly. He submitted that if there is stipulation in the contract itself, then the management has been empowered by clause 9 of the contract and LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 19 of 24 disengaged the workman from the service accordingly.
16. If we have seen and scrutinized the above evidence, then it appears that the workman had been working continuously for three and half years. Industrial Disputes Act has been enacted with a view to protect the interest of the workman at the end of scrupulous businessman. Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act who had completed 240 day in a preceding year, cannot be retrenched without following the provision under Section 25-F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has to give at least one month's notice or notice pay equivalent before retrenching the workman. He shall have to pay fifteen days average retrenchment compensation of every completed year of service. He has to inform the appropriate government of his intention of disengaging the services of the workman. But nothing has been complied by the management. Management has relied heavily upon the clause 9 (c) of the agreement and said that Section 2(bb) is applicable to him and services of the workman can be disengaged.
17. From the evidence, then it appears that services have been required regularly by the management of the CATS ambulance driver and contract LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 20 of 24 have been entered one by one even before expiry of the previous contract with the workman. It is not for any specific purpose. The above said provision has been made in the Industrial Disputes Act with the view that the management required workforce only for a particular period and after expiry of period, service of the workman is not required. But here, the services of the workman have been required continuously and his employment have been retained continuously and even at present number of employees have been working with the management. Therefore, the management cannot be allowed to take the advantage of Clause 9 (c) of the contract. If it is allowed to be happened, then any management can enter into a contract which is advantageous to him and terminate the services of the workman at his whims which is not the intention of enacting the provisions under Section 2(bb) of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, Section 2(bb) of the Act is not applicable. Management is not allowed to take recourse of Section 9 (c) of the agreement entered between the workman and the management.
18. The next contention of the management is that the workman has been punished of the negligence and his disengagement has been covered LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 21 of 24 in the provision prescribed under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act itself which says that retrenchment cannot be said when the workman's services have been terminated by way of punishment. He has relied upon the enquiry report Ex. MW 1/W1 where the enquiry has been conducted by the management where the committee constitutes to this effect was of the view that Sh. Amar Bahadur Yadav, Assistant Ambulance Officer and workman, Ambulance Driver on contract were well aware regarding the continuous and regular deployment of ambulance at the residence of Hon'ble Chief Minister as both the staff had earlier performed the said duty several times before this incidence. Ambulance N-22 and A-16, stationed at STC/ Trauma Centre base station, were deployed during Janta Samvad at Hon'ble CM residence on 06.01.2016 and 07.01.2016 respectively. Therefore, Sh. Amar Bahadur Yadav and Sh. Amit Dabas cannot be completely absolved of their responsibility simply on the ground that the CCR had not directed them to report to Hon'ble CM residence on 08.01.2016 as they were well aware that mainly one ambulance, preferably A-16, from STC/ Trauma Centre base station is deployed during Janta Samvad. In the present enquiry committee, workman has not been any opportunity to cross examine any LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 22 of 24 witness in his defence, therefore, the enquiry Ex. MW 1/W1 is nothing but an eye wash. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it is proper and fair enqiry. Therefore, the contention of the management is again failed.
19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the workman has succeeded in proving the isuses that his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably and the management has failed to prove that there is no relationship existed between the workman and the management. Hence, both the issues have been decided accordingly.
20. Issue No. 3:- If so, to what relief claimant is entitled? Since, it is an admitted case that the management requires the drivers for manging the CAT Ambulance Service and the workman is unemployed since then, workman is entitled to be reinstated. However, being the driver, he cannot sit or remain idle in whole period, Therefore, workman is given 50% back wages instead of full back wages. Workman is directed to be reinstated with fifty percent back wages since his service was terminated. Hence, award is passed accordingly.
LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 23 of 24
21. A copy of the award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed
ATUL by ATUL
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN KUMAR GARG
KUMAR Date:
COURT ON 26.11.2017 GARG 2018.12.01
14:13:00 +0530
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
RESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT-XVI/
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 8220/16,
Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 24 of 24
LIR No. 8220/16,
Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2017 Present: Sh. Kailash Johnwal, AR for the workman.
None for the management.
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in the open court, Award is passed accordingly. Copies of award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as per law. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance by Ahlmad.
(ATUL KUMAR GARG) RESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-XVI/ SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 8220/16, Amit Dabas Vs M/s Centralised Accident and Trauma Services 26.11.2018 Page No. 25 of 24