Delhi District Court
Shri Ram Bir Sharma S/O Shri Ln Sharma vs M/S Sytex Scientific Industries on 30 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURTXIX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
LCA No. 182/2006
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0 306882004
Shri Ram Bir Sharma S/o Shri LN Sharma
R/o B371, Gali No. 1,
Aman Vihar, Hari Enclave PhaseII,
Delhi ..............CLAIMANT
Versus
1. M/S Sytex Scientific Industries
2. M/S Sytex Scientific & Hydraulics (P) Ltd.
502, Pace CityII,
Sector37 , Gurgaon
Haryana ............MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 25.8.2005
Date for which Award reserved : 23.9.2013
Date of passing the award : 30.9.2013
A W A R D :
Workman has filed the present claim U/S 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act
against the management claiming that he has been working as Kaarigar with the
management for the last seven years and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs.
3500/. He alleged that the management took work for 12 hours from him
without payment of any overtime and he was also not provided with any legal
benefits. He further alleged that he used to demand for the same orally from the
LCA No. 182/2006 1 of 10
management due to which the management got annoyed and terminated his
services on 17.12.2000. Through the present claim, workman has submitted that
the management did not pay him the due wages totalling Rs.3,93,904/ (details
mentioned in Annexure A with the claim).
2. The claim was initially filed against M/S Sytex Industries and
notice was issued to it and appearance was filed on its behalf. WS was also filed
by the said management. Subsequently, the workman moved an application for
amending the name of the management to M/S Sytex Scientific Industries
which was allowed vide order dt. 05.10.2007. The workman again moved an
application for impleading another management as a party to the present claim
namely M/S Sytex Scientific & Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. as Management No. 2
which was also allowed vide order dt. 08.1.2008. Consequently, the said
Management No. 2 also appeared and filed its separate WS. Both the
management took a similar plea of no relationship with the workman and
denied any liability to pay the dues as demanded by the workman in the present
claim.
3. The workman filed the rejoinder wherein he reinstated the
pleadings of his claim and denied the pleas taken by the management in the
WS. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on
16.5.2007 as under :
1). Whether the claim filed by the workman under Section
33C(2) of the ID Act is maintainable?
LCA No. 182/2006 2 of 10
2). Whether the workman is entitled to relief claimed?
3). Relief.
4. After the management No. 2 appeared, additional issues/fresh
issues were framed vide order dt. 19.5.2008. However, the said issues were
deleted vide order dt. 20.5.2013 and the issues framed as above were
maintained.
5. The workman examined himself as WW1 and closed his evidence.
No witness was examined on behalf of Management No. 1 and Shri Pradeep
Saini was examined as MW1 on behalf of Management No. 2.
6. I have heard Shri JK Tiwari - Ld. AR for the workman and Shri
Naveen Kaushik - Ld. AR for the management and have carefully gone through
written arguments filed by the parties. My issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1 :
7. At the outset, the management No. 1 and 2, both denied the
relationship of employer and employee with the workman . It was argued by Ld.
AR for Managements that the issue of relationship cannot be decided in a claim
U/S 33C(2) of the ID Act, whereas Ld. AR for the workman argued otherwise.
Both the parties relied upon a no. of case laws on the subject. However, since
both the parties have led extensive evidence to establish and deny the
relationship and the claim was also based upon it, therefore, it become
imperative to decide the relationship.
LCA No. 182/2006 3 of 10
8. It is the case of workman that he had been in the employment of
the management since 1993 and his services were terminated on 17.12.2000. It
was further deposed by him that earlier the management was running in the
name of M/S Sytex Scientific Industries from Old Rohtak Road but it was
shifted to Pace City, Sector37 Gurgaon (Haryana) with a changed name M/S
Sytex Scientific & Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. The management claims that both are
totally separate entities with no connection between them. Shri Pradeep Saini
(MW1) deposed that he is one of the Directors of Management No. 2, i.e. M/S
Sytex Scientific & Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. and he has no concern with
Management No. 1.
9. There has been no specific averment in the WS filed on behalf of
Management No. 1 as to who was the proprietor of the said Management but
from the documents relied upon by the parties, it transpires that Shri Balbir
Singh Saini was its proprietor. It was also so deposed by MW1. However, it is
noteworthy that WS on behalf of Management No. 1 as well as on behalf of
Management No. 2 has been filed by MW1 namely Shri Pradeep Saini. Though
in the WS filed by him on behalf of Management No. 1, it has been stated that
Shri Pradeep Saini is not the proprietor of Management No. 1 but it has not
been revealed as to who was its proprietor or in what capacity he was filing the
WS on its behalf. In the affidavit attached with the said WS that he was so
filing it as his personal name has been shown as proprietor of the management.
LCA No. 182/2006 4 of 10
In case he had no relation with Management No. 1, he was not obliged to file
any WS even if his name was shown as proprietor and he could have permitted
the consequences to follow. It is also not out of place to mention here that he is
the son of Shri Balbir Singh Saini who has been shown as the proprietor of
Management No. 1.
10. In the crossexamination MW1 deposed that the business of his
father and his business were different and that his father expired in the year
2009. He also deposed that he is the only son of his father but has not inherited
any property from him. Though he deposed that his father has a sizeable
business and he used to go to his office and business place to help him but had
no information about his factory at Rohtak Road. He did not answered the
question put to him by Ld. AR for workman if he was having any dispute with
his father. It was observed by the Court during his crossexamination that he
had not produced any document on the application of the workman on the plea
that he had no connection with the business of his father and that the
presumption as per law shall be drawn . He further deposed that his father
remained on bed from the year 2001 to 2009 and he had taken care of his health
. He also deposed that till his death , his father resided at D602, Rail Vihar,
Sector15, Gurgaon i.e. the same address which was given by him as his
residential address in Court. This means that his father resided with him till he
expired which also shows that they were enjoying good relationship and
therefore, it cannot be believed that he had no knowledge about the business of
LCA No. 182/2006 5 of 10
his father which according to him was a sizeable business. It clearly shows that
MW1 was deliberately trying to conceal material facts and was trying to
mislead the Court.
11. During his further crossexamination two documents were put to
him, i.e. MW1/5 and MW1/6. Both were certificates of different dates issued on
the letter head of Management No. 1. MW1 admitted his signatures on
Ex.MW1/5 at point A and deposed that the signatures at point A on Ex.MW1/6
were that of his father.
12. The workman also filed copies of pages of some websites of
Management No. 2 but MW1 admitted only page 2 of Ex.MW1/3 which shows
him as the CEO of Management No. 2 and having the address of Gurgaon . He
denied the other pages of the website including Page No. 3 which shows the
name of his father as contact person of Management No. 2 and also shows the
address of Management No. 2 of Old Rohtak Road, Delhi, same as of
Management No. 1. I find no reason for disbelieving the said pages of the
website without any reason forthcoming from MW1.
13. The workman has also relied upon the visiting card Ex.WW1/8 of
MW1. There had been no specific denial by MW1 in his affidavit of the said
visiting card which bears the name of Management No. 2 and addresses of both
Management No. 1 and 2.
LCA No. 182/2006 6 of 10
14. The above facts clearly show that there had been a functional
integrality between Management No. 1 and 2. This term has been defined by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.G. CHEMICAL AND DYES TRADING
EMPLOYEES' UNION Vs.
S.G. CHEMICALS AND DYES TRADING
LIMITED AND ANOTHER 1986 SCC (2) 624 . In that case, the two firms
were running at different places at Bombay and were having different nature of
work but the work was interconnected. It was held that the functions of the
Churchgate Division and the Trombay factory of the respondent were neither
separate nor independent of each other but were so integrally connected as to constitute these two into one establishment. There was complete functional integrality between them.
15. In order to prove the relationship, the workman relied upon Form G of Register of Employment & Remuneration that is to say, his salary sheet for the months of July and August 1993 Ex.WW1/2 and WW1/1 respectively. There had been extensive crossexamination of the workman on Ex.WW1/1 as the upper and lower right portions of the said sheet were torn and it does not bear any stamp of Management No. 1 or of its authorized signatory. However, it was deposed by the workman that this document was prepared by some Ishwar Chand, working for the Management. These facts were admitted by the workman in his crossexamination . In regard to Ex.WW1/2, it was simply submitted that it was a photocopy, however, its original is also on record. Only a LCA No. 182/2006 7 of 10 suggestion was given to the workman that it was a forged document but there was no crossexamination on its contents. It is evident that it bears the stamp of Management No. 1 but do not bear the signatures of the employer. The reasons for the employer not signing it could have been deposed only by the witness of Management No. 1 who chose not to appear.
16. The workman has also proved the demand notice sent by him. However, it has been denied by Management No. 2 that it was ever received by it. Admittedly, the demand notice was sent at the address of Management No. 1 and therefore, it could not have been received at the address of Management No. 2. Again , no one on behalf of Management No. 1 has entered the witness box to categorically say that this demand notice was not received by it.
17. Workman further relied upon Ex.WW1/5, i.e. his wage statement for March 1996. However, it cannot be relied upon as rightly pointed out by Ld. AR for Management, since it does not bear either the stamp of any management or signatures of any authorized person . The above documents are sufficient to hold that the workman was an employee of Management No. 1 and since there had been a functional integrality between Management No. 1 and 2, he is also taken to be an employee of Management No. 2.
18. In view of the above, it is held that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Management No. 1 and 2 LCA No. 182/2006 8 of 10 and therefore, the present claim is maintainable. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the workman and against the managements. ISSUE No. 2 & 3/Relief :
19. The managements have simply denied the entitlement of the workman as claimed by him on the ground that he had no relationship with them. Once the relationship has been established, he becomes entitled to the monetary relief claimed by him. It is to be seen as to what relief can be claimed by him.
20. He has demanded earned salary for 25 days for the month of December 2000 amounting to Rs.2917/. There had been no specific challenge by the managements to this claim. He also demanded weekly off of 52 days every year for seven years @ Rs.3500/ per month . The weekly offs are always included in the monthly salary and are not separately payable and therefore, he is not entitled for the same. He also demanded earned leave for seven years @ 15 days per year @ Rs.3500/ per month amounting to Rs.12250/. Again there had been no specific challenge to this claim except of relationship.
21. The workman further demanded bonus for three years and gratuity for seven years. He could have claimed the same under the Bonus Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act and as such he cannot be held entitled for the same in the present claim.
LCA No. 182/2006 9 of 10
22. He further claimed overtime for seven years @ four hours per day at double the rate. However, the workman has not placed any evidence or record to show that he ever worked overtime daily during the seven years and as such he is not entitled to the overtime as demanded by him. \
23. He has next demanded notice pay of one month amounting to Rs. 3500/ per month which he is entitled to as also service compensation of seven year of service @ 15 days per year amounting to Rs.12250/. It is worth mentioning that the management failed to produce any document despite being demanded by the workman to prove relationship as well as the amount due, solely on the ground of no relationship and as observed earlier, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the management in this regard.
24. In view thereof, the workman is only entitled to 25 days of earned wages amounting to Rs.2917/, earned wages for seven years amounting to Rs. 12250/, notice pay of one month amounting to Rs.3500/ and service compensation amounting to Rs.12250/, totalling a sum of Rs.30,417/.
Accordingly, the management is directed to pay to the workman a sum of Rs.30,417/. Claim is accordingly answered. Case file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 30th Day of September 2013 (SANJAY SHARMA)
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTXIX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
LCA No. 182/2006 10 of 10