Delhi District Court
Applicant / vs M/S. B. S. E. S. Yamuna Power Ltd on 1 February, 2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
BEFORE LABOUR COURT - XI: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: Mr. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL
(Delhi Higher Judicial Service)
(Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi)
LABOUR COURT APPLICATION No. 170/16
UNIQUE CASE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 02402C0265102013
In the matter of:
Sahdev s/o. Sh. Naryan Singh,
R/o. H. No. T1689, Gali Robin Cinema,
Sabzi Mandi, Delhi - 110007.
through Mr. V K Sharma (President),
A.P.S. & SSW Employees Union (Regd.)
5/24, Nehru Ekta Colony, SecVI, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi - 22.
..... Applicant / Workman / Complainant
Vs.
1. M/s. B. S. E. S. Yamuna Power Ltd.,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Shakti Kiran Building, Opp. Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi - 110092.
2. The Contractor
M/s. Property Guards Security Services Pvt. Ltd.
RZ - 379/21, Tughlakabad Extn.,
New Delhi - 110019.
.... Managements
Date of institution : 21.08.2013
Date of reserving for decision : 30.01.2017
Date of decision : 01.02.2017
LABOUR COURT APPLICATION UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF
SECTION 33C OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
Page 1 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
DECISION:
1. CASE OF APPLICANT / WORKMAN AS PLEADED IN APPLICATION
UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 33C OF THE INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES ACT, 1947
"1. That the applicant / workman has been working as security guard with the
management w.e.f. 13.07.09 most sincerely and diligently and his last drawn
salary was Rs.5500/ per month.
2. That the management was not paying the applicant / workman wages @
overtime wages, rate of double prescribed by the Delhi Government. The
management was taking duty of 12 to 16 hours ad day although and the applicant
is thus, entitled to receive the following of over time wages at the rate of double
wages less paid to him.
Period 18.07.2009 to 13.02.2012
Calculation performa overtime hours one month
minimum wages 3952÷ 26 = 152 per day rate.
Days 245 duty x 152 = 37,240/
Period 01.02.2010 to 31.01.2011 12 months
minimum wages 5278 ÷ 26 = 203 12 months x 38 = 456 days x 456 days x 203 =
92,568/
Period 01.02.11 to 13.02.2012
Minimum wages 6656 ÷ 26 = 256 period 12 months and 30 days, 474 days x per
day rates 256 = 1,21,344/
Total 2,51,152/
Payment of minimum wages arrears
01.08.2009 to 31.01.2010 rate of minimum wages is Rs.3953 paid amount 3412/
with ESI, P.F. less amount per month Rs.541 X 6 per month = 3246/
01.02.2010 to 31.01.2011 minimum wages Rs.5278 paid amount 4550 with ESI,
P.F., less amount per month 728 x 12 months = 8736/
Page 2 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
Period 01.02.2011 to 30.08.2011 minimum wages rate 6656 paid amount 5687
with ESI P.F. less amount 969 per month x 7 months = 6783
Total Rs.18, 765/
Leave per annum 45 days 45 x 3 = 135 x 256 = 34, 560
Total Rs. 3,44,077/
3. That the management had not been allowing the applicant / workman to
avail earned leave, and National holiday and festival holidays from 13.07.09 to
13.02.2012 and the applicant is thus entitled to receives wages against leave and
over time wages.
4. That the management was not paying overtime wages and double the wages
to the applicant and was taking 12 to 16 hours duty daily although from the day of
this appointment and the workman is entitled to received following payments
against overtime wages etc. The applicant / workman is thus entitled to received
Rs. 3,44,077/ (Rupees three lacs forty four thousand seventy seven only) from the
management as existing wages and benefits provided under the Delhi Govt. Act
and shop and establishment Act.
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble court may kindly
be pleased to determine the aforementioned existing wages against a leave /
difference overtime wages less paid wages etc. in favour of the applicant in the
facts and circumstances of the case as explained above, in the interest of justice."
1A. Pursuant to order dated 06.08.2016, ld ARW filed CHART OF LEGAL
DUES CORRECT AMOUNT AS PER CALCULATION with the following
details.
"OVERTIME WAGES @ DOUBLE
That the work man every day 4 hours duty as per one duty and also
all Sundays two duty total Duties in a month 38 Duties :
1. Period if 18072009 to 3112010 = 6 ½ Months
Page 3 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
Minimum wage Rs.3952 per day amount 152/
Per month 152 Hours - 4 = 243 Duties x 152 = Rs. 36936/
Period 1022010 to 31012011 12 Months MW
5278 per day Rs.203/. PM 38 duties x 203 = x 12 month = 456 days x Rs.
203 = Rs.92,568/
1022011 to 13022012 = 12 months
MW 6656 pery day Rs.256/ total duties 456 Days x 256 = 116736/
Total : Rs. 3,04,608/
2 MINIMUM WAGE ARREARS
(a) Period - 01082009 to 31012010 = 6 months
MW 3953 paid 3412 less paid 541 P.M. x 6 months = Rs.3246/
(b) 1022010 to 31012011 = 12 months
MW 5278 paid 4550 less paid Rs.728 x 12 months = 8736/
Period 1022011 to 30082011 = 7 months
MW 6656 paid 5687 less paid 969 per month x 7 months = 6783/
Total : Rs.18765/
LEAVE AMOUNT
As per shops and Establishment Act 15 days per year claim last 3 years
15 days x 3 years = 45 days x Rs.256 Per day Rs.11,520/
Total amount 3,34,889"
1B. On 30.01.2017 also ld. ARW filed another CALCULATION CHARTII.
2. CASE AS PLEADED BY B.S.E.S. YPL MANAGEMENT NO.1 IN
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.
No employer - employee relationship ever existed and / or exists between
management no.1 and the workman. Claimant being an employee of management
no.2 was working under the direct control and supervision of the contractor /
service provider. The contractor namely M/s. Property Guards Security Service
Pvt. Ltd. is a separate legal entity and is registered under Company Act. BSES has
Page 4 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
no control on the management no.2. The service provider has independent legal
identity and has separate PF & ESIC Code for compliances. Its PF Code is
MH/44568 and ESI Code is 20310433950011001. The contractor / service provider
is fully and solely responsible for payment of wages and other benefits as claimed.
The contractor / service provider is engaged by BSES for providing security
services. Since there is no employer - employee relationship between the claimant
and management no.1, the question of allowing or denying the earned leave,
National and festival holiday by the management no.1 does not arise. At last
management no.1 prayed for dismissal of application in hand.
3. CASE AS PLEADED BY M/S. PROPERTY GUARDS SECURITY
SERVICES PVT. LTD. (MANAGEMENT NO.2) IN THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.
Management no.2 in the WS, while denying the case as pleaded by
workman in the labour court application, pleaded that claim (LCA) regarding the
service of the complainant is matter of record that when he had joined the services
of the management and on what salary he was working with the management. The
management no.2 has never terminated the services of workman in any manner and
it is the workman himself who abandoned the services of the management after
making his full and final with the management no.2 on 09.04.2012. Workman has
taken his entire payment on 10.06.2013 before Office of the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Central District, Delhi. The allegations levelled against the
management regarding due payment, chargesheet, notice, inquiry, ESI and EPF do
not arise because the management no.2 has never debarred any of its employees
from their legal benefits but this workman himself has abandoned the services of
the management no.2 on his own after making his full and final on 09.04.2012.
Management no.2 denied that it has ever taken a duty from the workman more than
12 to 16 hours in a day and had not paid to the workman against the overtime work
performed by him. Management no.2 had always paid to the workman as per work
Page 5 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
performed by him according to the system prescribed and determined as per law
and there is nothing pending towards the workman and against the management
no.2 under any of the heads as mentioned in labour court application. There arises
no question of not paying of wages to any of the workman by the management
no.2. Management no.2 has always paid to its entire workmen their salary and
wages regularly as per the law. The management no.2 has never taken any
overtime work from the workman more than the duty period / hour as determined
by the system of the management. The averments regarding the wages of the
workman and its pendency or non payment by the management no. 2 are wrong
and denied. Even the contents regarding the working hours of the workman from
12 to 16 hours in a day are also wrong and denied. The facts regarding minimum
wages arrears of the workman are also wrong and denied because, as such, no
amount of workman is pending with the management no.2. Even no overtime
amount is pending with the management no.2 because management no.2 has never
taken the any overtime from the workman. The management no.2 had never
stopped the workman to avail the time (sic) of national holiday and other important
festivals during the course of his employment with the management no.2. At last
management no.2 pleaded that workman is not entitled to any relief from
management no.2.
4. REJOINDER
Workman filed common rejoinder to the separate WSs of both the
managements denying the stands taken by the managements.
5. ISSUES
On 25.08.2014 court passed the following order:
"25.08.2014
Present: Mr. V K Sharma, ARW.
None for management no.1
Mr. S K Ojha, adv. for management no.2 with Mr.
Sunil Singh, Head (Operations) with the
Page 6 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
management.
Copy of the documents filed by management no.2
on 14.08.2014 supplied to ld. ARW. Put up at after lunch for
orders.
Sd/
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC - XI / KKD / DELHI / 25.08.2014
Present: None.
Vide separate detailed order application moved by
workman seeking production of records from management
stands disposed off with certain observations. On the basis of
material available on judicial file following issues are framed:
(i) Whether workman is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs.3,44,077/ in terms of averments made in LCA under section
33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, from which of
the managements? OPW
(ii) Relief.
No issue is being framed regarding limitation aspect
inasmuch as provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to
proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Also,
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not provide any limitation for
filing an application under section 33 C (2) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Also, issue of abandonment of his services with
management no.2 by the workman is not relevant for the
purposes of present application under section 33 C (2) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Proceedings dated 10.06.2013
pertains to payment of arrears of wages only. Put up for WE on
26.09.2014. Management no.1 to file documents in terms of
order passed separately."
6. APPLICATION MOVED BY WORKMAN FOR SUMMONING THE
RECORDS FROM THE MANAGEMENTS.
On 22.03.2014 workman moved an application for summoning certain
documents from the management no.1 and no.2. This application was disposed of
vide separate detailed order in following terms:
" ORDER
25.08.2014
1. This order shall disposed off an application moved on
22.03.2014 by workman for summoning following record(s) from
the managements, i.e., (i) Full Attendance sheet; (ii) Overtime
register; (iii) Leave register; (iv) Wages register; (v) Bonus register;
(vi) Appointment letter and (vii) Contractor Agreement etc.
Page 7 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
2. Both the managements contested the applicationinhand.
Management no.1 replied that the question of management no.1
having the abovesaid record(s) or being responsible for not
producing the same does not arise as workman has never been an
employee of management no.1. However, management no.1
produced the agreement between management no.1 and
management no.2. In this manner, request of workman for
producing the Contractor Agreement vide sl. no. (vii) stands
satisfied.
3. Management no. 2 in the reply stated that the management
never kept the documents in their possession more than one year
after the expiry of any contract and management used to destroy
the entire documents after the expiry of any contract. Also,
management no.2 pleaded that entire documents mentioned by
workman in para. no. 2 of application have already been destroyed
by management as these are very old documents. Management
no.2 also pleaded that workman himself abandoned his services
after taking his full and final from management no.2. Management
no.2 also filed an affidavit of Mr. Sunil Singh as regards reasons for
non production of record(s) by the management no.2.
4. I have heard Sh. V. K. Sharma, ARW, Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
adv. proxy counsel for Ms. Ritu Gupta, adv. for management no.1
and Mr. S. K. Ojha, adv. for management no.2. and gone through
material available on judicial file with very carefully.
5. Management no.1 has filed on judicial record its agreement
with management no.2 but it has pleaded that there is no question
of management no.1 having the record(s) production of which is
sought for by the workman. In a way management no.1 has
expressed its inability to produce the record(s) sought by the
workman. Be that as it may. Obviously, management no.1 must
be possessing all those record(s) which it was supposed to receive
from management no.2 in terms of the agreement between both the
managements. The case is at its initial stage of trial; the effect of
nonproduction of abovesaid record(s) by management no.1 shall be
considered during the trial of this case or at the time of its final
disposal. However, it is deemed appropriate to give a liberty / an
opportunity / direction to management no.1 to file on record
necessary documents which it might have received from
management no.2 in terms of its agreement with management no.2
with regard to employment of workman and concerning the claims
made by workman herein. Management no.1 to produce such
documents within 20 days from today without fail. Obviously, legal
Page 8 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
consequences will follow on account of non production of abovesaid
documents.
There is no dispute as regards maintenance, by management no.2,
of record(s) which is sought be to be produced from the
managements by the workman. No direction for production of
record(s) can be given to management no.2 in view of reply
submitted by it. Obviously, in the course of trial management no.2
shall show that as per law it was entitled to destroy the record(s) in
terms of its reply. If management no.2 fails to do so, legal
consequences will follow in due course. Also, on account of
management no.2 destroying the record(s) workman shall be
entitled to prove his case on judicial file through other lawful means
with the permission of Court, if any, so required. Also, it is noted
that as per noting dated 10.06.2013 only the payment of arrears of
wages was made.
6. Application moved by workman stands disposed off in view
of above observations."
7. APPLICATION MOVED BY MANAGEMENT NO.2 FOR CALLING
THE WRITING EXPERT FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF
WORKMAN.
This application was disposed off by the Court vide order dated 20.07.2016
which reads as under:
" ORDER
20.07.2016
1. This order shall dispose off an application moved by
management no.2 on 03.05.2016 for calling the writing expert for
verification of signature of workman.
2. This application has been contested by workman by filing
reply on 13.07.2016.
3. I have heard Mr. S. K. Ojha, Adv for applicant /
management no.2 and Mr. V. K. Sharma, Adv for workman on
this application and gone through material available on judicial
file carefully.
4. In the application - in - hand management no.2 has
alleged that on 09.04.2012 workman had made his full and final
settlement from the management but during cross - examination
workman denied his signature on receipt executed by him on
Page 9 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
09.04.2012 and has denied the fact that he has not (sic) made
any full and final settlement with the management. As per
applicant / management no.2 once workman has denied his
signature it has became necessary for the management to call the
writing expert for verification of signature of the workman for
truth of the facts regarding full and final settlement between
workman and management no.2. As alleged by applicant /
management no.2 application was not filed earlier because the
proceedings on the part of the workman as well as the other
contesting management were pending and proceedings in that
respect were going on. Thus, applicant / management no.2 has
prayed for calling the writing expert for verification of signature of
workman on the receipt of full and final settlement in the interest
of justice which is necessary for disposal of the case on merits.
Workman in the reply pleaded that application is not
maintainable inasmuch as (i) in 'Samjhota Rashid' dated
09.04.2012 the signature of workman are there in Hindi but
workman always signs in English; (ii) the workman did not
mention anywhere that he will resign after taking all dues and
(iii) as the workman was regularly doing the duty and workman
was on leave only for 3 days which is clear from daily
attendance dated 01.05.2012, which is signed in English
language. At last workman prayed for dismissal of this
application.
This case has reached the stage of final arguments. Workman
as well as both the managements have already led their
respective evidence. As per applicant / management no.2
workman made is full and final settlement on 09.04.2012 but
workman has denied his signature on the alleged full and final
settlement receipt Ex.WW1/M1. As per workman, workman
always signs in English but Ex.WW1/M1 bears the signatures of
employee in Hindi. Management no.2 is also relying upon
Ex.MW1/X1 (3 pages) and Ex.Mw1/X2 (5 pages) allegedly
written by workman in his own handwriting.
It has to be kept in mind even after expert evidence is given in a
case it ultimately befalls the court to accept or reject the expert
evidence, and to accept, or to reject the signatures as of person to
whom they are attributed. The court is not bound to accept the
expert evidence and can reach its own conclusion even contrary
to evidence led by expert for good and sufficient reasons.
Existence / non - existence of the signatures of the workman on
various documents can be decided by the Court on the basis of
pleadings as well as entire evidence which has already come on
record. Also it is observed that, in the totality of the facts and
Page 10 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
circumstances of this case it can be said that existence / non
existence of signature of the workman on Ex.WW1/M1 is not
going to be a vital factor for decision of the case in one way or the
other. Effect of existence / non existence of the signature of
workman on Ex.WW1/M1 as to be gathered keeping in view the
totality of the facts and circumstances of this case on the basis of
entire material available on judicial file. Also, in my opinion, this
court need not pass a detailed order while dealing with the
application in hand inasmuch as the same may result in
expression of the opinion of the court on merits of the case. In my
considered opinion, in the totality of the facts and circumstances
of this case, application moved by management no.2 is not worth
allowing and same merits dismissal, and same is hereby
dismissed.
5. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY."
8. EVIDENCE
Workman examined himself as WW1 Mr. Sahdev. Management no.2
examined MW1 Mr. Sunil Singh, Manager. Management no.1 examined MW2
- Mr. Rakesh Koul, Deputy General Manager.
9. ARGUMENTS
I have heard Mr. V K Sharma, Adv for workman, Ms. Ritu Gupta, Adv for
management no.1 and Mr. S. K. Ojha, Adv for management no.2. Ld ARW relied
upon case laws reported as (i) Ram Lakhan Vs Presiding Officer & Ors. 2001 LLR
344 and (ii) Director General (Works), CPWD Vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. 2000 - I -
LLJ582. Written arguments have also been filed by management no.2. I have
gone through the material available on judicial file very carefully.
10. My ISSUEWISE findings are as under:
ISSUE No.1
Whether workman is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,44,077/ in terms of
averments made in LCA under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947? If so, from which of the managements? OPW
As per workman he was employed with the management since 13.07.2009
Page 11 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
till 13.02.2012. By the application in hand workman is seeking to recover overtime
wages inasmuch as management was taking duty for 12 to 16 hours a day from the
workman. Also workman is claiming arrears of wages (e.g. the difference between
wages paid and minimum wages) paid to the workman inasmuch as workman was
allegedly paid wages less than minimum wages. Further workman is claiming
leave encashment.
Case of the management no.1 is that there existed no employer - employee
relationship between the management no.1 and workman, and workman was an
employee of management no.2 with whom management no.1 had contract for
providing security services. As per management no.1 workman worked under the
direct control and supervision of his employer namely management no.2 /
contractor / service provider.
As per management no.2 claims of the workman regarding his date of
joining of service with the management and salary which was being paid to him are
matters of record. However management no.2 pleaded that it never terminated the
service of workman and it is the workman himself who abandoned his service with
management no.2 w.e.f. 09.04.2014 after making his full and final settlement with
management no.2
Here management no.1 and no.2 had entered into a contract.
Clause 10 of said contract reads as under:
"10.0 Security Agency shall maintain following registers / logbooks and
present it for inspection by OfficerinCharge of the company. (At the cost of
Security Agency)
10.1 Material Inward register, AnnexureVII
10.2 Material outward register, AnnexureVII
10.3 Material Issued on returnable basis - Annexure - VIII
10.4 Vehicle Movement Register - Annexure - IX,
10.5 Format for night checking - AnnexureX,
10.6 Mobile Van Register - AnnexureXI
10.7 Report on Mock drill - Annexure - XII
10.8 Daily attendance record - AnnexureXIII
10.9 Certificate for Compliances of Statutory Laws - AnnexureXV."
Page 12 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
Clause 13 of said contract reads as under:
"13.0 Payment Terms:
13.1 The Security Agency shall raise monthly bills in the 1 st week of every
month for the previous month strictly in the format provided by the
Company. The Security Agency shall submit the following documents
alongwith the Invoice for its certification by the Officer - in - charge. Officer
incharge shall certify the Bills within 3 days for its onward transmission to
finance department:
13.1.1 Invoice. (One bill for one month)
13.1.2 Challans evidencing deposit of Provident Fund.
13.1.3 Challans evidencing contribution of ESIC.
13.1.4 Copy of Attendance Register.
13.1.5 Report on Security Checks done during the month,
13.1.6 Copy of the Inspection registers duly signed by Officerin
Charge of the company......"
Clause 15 of said contract reads as under:
"15.0 Statutory Obligations:
The Security Agency shall take all steps, necessary or
otherwise, to comply with the various applicable laws / rules /
regulations / notifications, including, but not limited to, the provisions of
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition Act), 1970 as amended, Minimum
wages Act, 1948. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as amended,
Employees State Insurance Act 1948, Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and all
other applicable laws and rules framed there under including any statutory
approval required from the Central / State Governments, Ministry of
Labour".
In addition to clause no. 15, as reproduced hereinabove, management no.2
is bound to comply with the provisions of the Acts namely (1) The Payment of
Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936); (2) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947);
(3) The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948); (4) The Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952); (5) The Payment of
Bonus Act, 1965 (21 of 1965); (6) The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 (37 of 1970); (7) The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972); (8)
The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (25 of 1976) and (9) The InterState Migrant
Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (30 of
Page 13 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
1979 as mentioned in THE SCHEDULE to the Private Security Agencies
(Regulation) Act, 2005 in view of section 13 (1) (j) of the Private Security
Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Rules 74, 76, 77, 78 and 80 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 read as under:
"74. Register of contractors - Every principal employer shall maintain in
respect of each registered establishment a register of contractors in Form
XII.
76. Employment Card (i) Every contractor shall issue an employment card
in Form XIV to each worker within three days of the employment of the
worker.
(ii) The card shall be maintained upto date and any change in the
particulars shall be entered therein.
77. Service Certificate - On termination of employment for any reason
whatsoever the contractor shall issue to the workman whose services have
been terminated a Service Certificate in Form XV.
78. Muster Roll, Wages Registers, Deduction Register and Overtime
Register - (1) (a) Every contractor shall in respect of each work on which he
engages contract labour
(i) maintain a Muster Roll and a Register of Wages in Form XVI and Form
XVII respectively:
Provided that a combined Register of Wage - cum - Muster Roll in
Form XVIII shall be maintained by the contractor where the wage period is
a Fortnight or less;
(ii) maintain a Register of Deduction for damage or loss, Register of Fines
and Register of Advances in Form XX, Form XXI and Form XXII
respectively;
(iii) maintain a Register of Overtime in Form XXIII recording therein the
number of hours of, and wages paid for, overtime work, if any;
(b) Every contractor shall, where the wage period is one week or more,
issue wage slips in Form XIX, to the workmen at least a day prior to the
disbursement of wages;
(c) Every contractor shall obtain the signature or thumb impression of the
worker concerned against the entries relating to him on the Register of
Wages or Muster Roll - cum - Wages Register, as the case may be, and the
entries shall be authenticated by the initials of the contractor or his
authorised representative and shall also be duly certified by the authorised
representative of the principal employer in the manner provided in rule 73.
(d) In respect of establishments which are governed by the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936) and the rules made thereunder, or Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 19848) or the rules made thereunder, the following
Page 14 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
registers and records required to be maintained by a contractor as employer
under those Acts and the rules made thereunder shall be deemed to be
register and records to be maintained by the contractor under these rules,
namely :
(a) Muster Roll;
(b) Register of Wages;
(c) Register of Deductions;
(d) Register of Overtime;
(e) Register of Fines;
(f) Register of Advances;
(g) Wage Slip;
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where a
combined or alternative form is sought to be used by the contractor to avoid
duplication of work for compliance with the provisions of any other Act or
the rules framed thereunder for any other laws or regulation or in cases
where mechanised pay rolls are introduced for better administration,
alternative suitable form or forms in lieu of any of the forms prescribed
under these rules, may be used with the previous approval of the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central).
80. (1) All registers and other records required to be maintained under the
Act and rules, shall be maintained complete and uptodate, and, unless
otherwise provided for, shall be kept at an officer or the nearest convenient
building within the precincts of the workplace or at a place within a radius
or three kilometers.
(2) Such registers shall be maintained legibly in English and Hindi or in the
language understood by the majority of the persons employed in the
establishment.
(3) All the registers and other records shall be preserved in original for a
period of three calendar years from the date of last entry therein.
(4) All the registers, records and notices maintained under the Act or rules
shall be produced on demand before the Inspector or any other authority
under the Act or any person authorised in that behalf by the Central
Government.
(5) Where no deduction or fine has been imposed or no overtime has been
worked during any wage period, a 'nil' entry shall be made across the body
of the register at the end of the wage period indicating also in precise terms
the wage period to which the 'nil' entry relates, in the respective registers
maintained in Forms XX, XXI, and XXIII respectively."
IN THE CASE IN HAND, this Court is concerned ONLY with claims of
workman towards overtime wages, wages paid less than minimum wages and leave
encashment and is not concerned with the circumstances under which relationship
Page 15 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
of employer and employee ceased to exist between management no.2 and the
workman.
ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD it is evident that workman
was an employee of management no.2 / the contractor / service provider, who had a
contract for providing security service with management no.1 (the principal
employer).
CLAIMS OF WORKMAN ARE towards overtime wages, wages paid less
than minimum wages and leave encashment for the period of employment of
workman. Workman is claiming overtime wages for four hour overtime work
daily and eight hours overtime work on four Sundays in a month at the rate double
of the normal minimum wages. Workman is claiming overtime for 38 duties (i.e.
each day extra work for 4 hours on 30 days in a month is equal to one duty on each
day and eight hours work on each Sunday is equal to 2 duties on each Sunday) per
month for the period of his employment.
WORKMAN IS ALSO CLAIMING difference of wages paid to him and
the minimum wages. LASTLY WORKMAN IS CLAIMING leave encashment as
per section 22 of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1954.
As per management no.2 nothing is due towards the workman from the
management no.2 because workman has taken his entire dues from the
management no.2 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and workman has
signed the paper in this regard before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. As per
management no.2 it had always paid to the workman as per work performed by
him according to the system prescribed and determined as per law, and there is
nothing pending towards the workman and against management no.2 under any of
the heads as mentioned in the Labour Court Application.
As per document Ex.MW1/1 what was paid to the workman in the Office
of the Deputy Labour Commissioner was the payment towards arrears of wages to
the tune of Rs.3500/ for the period from 01.09.2011 to 28.02.2012. Thus,
Page 16 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017
Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16
payment of Rs.3500/ to the workman was towards arrears of wages for the period
from 01.09.2011 to 28.02.2012 and nothing more. Thus, stand of management as
pleaded in the WS that entire dues of workman have been paid to him before
Labour Commissioner is without any substance. In the totality of facts and
circumstances of this case management no.2 can be said to have failed to prove
Ex.WW1/M1. Other possible corroborative evidence to support Ex.WW1/M1
have not been produced. Management no.2 had not produced other statutory
record to substantiate Ex.WW1/M1. The management no.2 could have well
substantiated its stand in WS, had it would have produced before the Court all
relevant statutory records, as mentioned above, which it was bound to maintain and
preserve but management no.2 has not done so. Even the management no.1 has not
produced the records which might have been provided to management no.1 by
management no.2 in terms of contract between management no.1 and no.2.
THIS IS DESPITE THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2014 passed by this Court
on the application moved by workman seeking summoning of records from the
managements. If management no.2 destroyed the records, it acted in complete
violation of statutory provisions and it cannot take benefits of its own wrongs. In
view of proceedings initiated by workman against the managements before labour
authorities or this Court managements were supposed to preserve the records even
beyond the statutory period but they did not do so. It is settled law that nobody can
be permitted to take benefits on its own wrongs.
FURTHER Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case law reported as
"Gopal Krishnaji Kaetkar Vs. Mohd. Haji Latif & Ors." AIR 1968 SC 1413 has
observed / ruled as under:
"5.
................................................................................................
Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withhold important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for Page 17 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017 Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16 those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Murugesam Pillai v. Ghana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98: MANU/PR/0053/1916 : AIR 1917 PC 6 at p. 8 Lord Shaw Observed as follows:
A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and falling, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision With regard to third parties, this may be right enough - they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit but with regard to the parties thee suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition.
This passage was cited with approval by this Court in a recent decision - Biltu Ram v. Jainandan Prasad. Civil Appeal No. 941 of 1965 D/1541968 (SC). In that case, reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants upon the following passage from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Mt.Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, 42 Ind App 202 at p. 206:
AIR 1915 PC 96 at p. 98:
But it is open to a litigant to refrain from producing any documents that he considers irrelevant, if the other litigant is dissatisfied it is for him to apply for an affidavit of documents and he can obtain inspection and production of all that appears to him such affidavit to be relevant and proper. If he fail, so to do, neither he nor the Court at his suggestion is entitled to draw any inference as to the contents of any such documents.
6. But Shah, J, speaking for the Court, stated:
The observation of the Judicial Committee do not support the proposition that unless a party is called upon expressly to make an affidavit of documents and inspection and production of documents is demanded, the Court cannot raise an adverse inference against a party withholding evidence in his possession. Such a rule is inconsistent with illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and also an impressive body of authority.'' Page 18 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017 Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16 Obviously, all concerned are bound to follow the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in above referred case law.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, on account of nonproduction of relevant / requisite statutory records, by the managements, concerning the claims made by workman herein an adverse inference to the effect that had the managements produced the said records the same would not have supported the stand of management no.2 that nothing is due from management no.2 to the workman and that management no.2 had always paid to the workman as per the work performed by him according to the system prescribed and determined as per law. Further it is pertinent to note that workman is relying upon Ex.WW1/E / Ex.WW1/F. This document could have been controverted by the managements by producing relevant records but none of the managements have done so. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case Ex.WW1/E / Ex.WW1/F cannot be discarded altogether merely because original thereof has already been produced by the workman inasmuch as obviously original of this document must have been in the possession of the managements and managements have not produced the requisite / relevant statutory records as mentioned above. It is pertinent to note that Ex.WW1/E / Ex.WW1/F mentions about Day Shift from 08.00 to 20.00 and Night Shift from 20.00 to 08.00. From this it is evident that workman was being made to work for 12 hours in one shift and, thus, it can be said that workman worked for 4 hours overtime daily. But managements have not produced records to show that workman was paid overtime wages as per law. The minimum wages for unskilled worker as notified by appropriate Government are as under: Minimum Wages w.e.f. Unskilled Worker 01.02.2009 Rs.3934.00 01.08.2009 Rs.3953.00 01.02.2010 Rs.5278.00 Page 19 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017 Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16 01.02.2011 Rs.6084.00 01.04.2011 Rs.6422.00 01.10.2011 Rs.6656.00 01.04.2012 Rs.7020.00 Thus, workman is held to be entitled to recover OVERTIME WAGES as under from the management no.1:
01.08.2009 to 31.01.2010 = (3953 / 26) x 38 x 6 = Rs. 34664.00 01.02.2010 to 31.01.2011 = (5278.00 / 26) x 38 x 12 = Rs. 92568.00 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2012 = (6084.00 / 26) x 38 x 2 = Rs. 17784.00 and (6422.00 / 26) x 38 x 6 = Rs.56316.00 and (6656.00 / 26) x 38 x 4 = Rs.38912.00 and (6656.00 / 26) x 13 = Rs. 3328.00 Total = Rs.243572.00 (OT) Also workman is entitled to recover for ARREARS OF MINIMUM WAGES as under: 01.08.2009 to 31.01.2010 = (Minimum Wages - Amount paid) x 6 = (Rs.3953 - Rs.3412) x 6 = Rs. 3246.00 01.02.2010 to 31.01.2011 = (Minimum Wages - Amount paid) x months = (Rs.5278 - Rs.4550) x 12 = Rs. 8736.00 01.02.2011 to 30.08.2011 = (Minimum Wages - Amount paid) x months = (Rs.6084 - Rs.5687) x 2 = Rs. 794.00 And (Rs.6422 - Rs.5687) x 4 = Rs.2940.00 Total arrears of minimum wages = Rs. 3246/ + Rs. 8736/ + Rs.794/ + Rs.2940/ = Rs.15716/ (AoMW) Also workman is entitled to LEAVE ENCASHMENT for two years of service = 30 x 6656 / 26 = Rs. 7680/ (LE) Total entitlement of workman towards overtime wages + arrears of Page 20 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017 Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16 minimum wages + leave encashment = Rs.243572/ (OT) + Rs.15716/ (AoMW) + Rs.7680/ (LE) = Rs.266968/.
Abovesaid amount is primarily payable by management no.2 who is employer of workman.
AT THIS STAGE it would be relevant to refer Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 reads as under: "21. Responsibility for payment of wages - (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.
(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer.
(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period of makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor."
Section 2 (1) (h) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 reads as under: "2. Definitions - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires ......................................................................................................................
(h) "wages" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (vi) of section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936)."
And section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 reads as under: "2. Definitions - In this Act, unless there is any thing repayment in the subject or context: ..............................................................................................................................
(vi) "wages" means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances, Page 21 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017 Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16 or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes
(a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;
(b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave period;
(c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name);
(d) any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions, but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made;
(e) any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme framed under any law for the time being in force, but does not include (1) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise) which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;
(2) the value of any houseaccommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service excluded from the computation of wages by a general or special order of (the appropriate Government);
(3) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued thereon;
(4) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;
(5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or (6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in subclause (d)."
In view of above statutory provisions management no.1 being the principal Page 22 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017 Sahdev Vs. M/s. B.S.E.S.YPL & Anr. LCA No. 170/16 employer is also liable to pay the abovesaid amount to the workman and then recover the same from the management no.2. Accordingly it is held that workman is held to be entitled to recover abovesaid amount of Rs.266968/ from management no.2. Further management no.1 is liable to pay the said amount to the workman and recover the same from management no.2 in terms of section 21 (4) r/w. section 2 (h) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and further read with section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Also, workman is held to be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.25000/ as cost of litigation from management no.2. Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE No.2: Relief.
As above
11. Copy of this decision be sent to appropriate government in terms of section 33 C (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12. File be consigned to record room after completing due formalities.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.02.2017 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLCXI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi* Page 23 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI:KKD:DELHI:01.02.2017