Delhi District Court
Nagdev & Ors. vs . M/S. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. Id ... on 3 June, 2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
BEFORE LABOUR COURT - XI: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. KIRAN BANSAL
(Delhi Higher Judicial Service)
(Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi)
REFERENCE CASE (ID) No. 1207/16
In the matter of:
1). Sh. Nagdev S/o. Sh. Nathun Prasad,
2). Sh. Dharmber Singh S/o. Sh. Patrol Pratool
3). Sh. Pradeep S/o. Sh. Nanku Prasad
C/o. Delhi State Kamgar Union,
Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi19 ......... Workmen
Vs.
M/s. Lark Laboratories (India) Ltd.,
A105/2, Okhla Industrial Area,
PhaseII, New Delhi20. ......... Management
Date of institution : 07.11.2003
Date of reserving for award : 03.06.2017
Date of award : 03.06.2017
AWARD
1. Vide Order No. F.24(915)/03/Lab./1143539 dated 31.07.2003 Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Delhi made
the following reference under section 10(1)(c) and section 12(5) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour Notification No.
S11011/2/75/DK (1A) dated 14th April 1975 for adjudication by this Court:
"Whether the services of (1) Sh. Nagdev S/o. Sh. Nathun Prasad, (2) Sh.
Page 1 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)
POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
Dharmber Singh, S/o. Sh. Patrol Pratrool & (3) Sh. Pradeep S/o. Sh.
Nanku Prasad, C/o. Delhi State Kamgar Union, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri
Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi19 have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what sum of money as
monetary relief alongwith consequential benefit in terms of existing
laws/Government notification and to what other relief is he/are they
entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?''
2. Workmen Pradeep Kumar and Dharambeer filed separate Statementof
Claims. Workman Sh. Nagdev did not turn up despite notice and never filed any
statement of claim. Workman Sh. Pradeep alleged that he was working with the
management on the post of 'Helper' with his last drawn wages of Rs. 2,789/ p.m
since 23.11.94. It is stated by the workman that the management terminated the
services of its workmen in batches, 31 workmen in one batch and 35 in another
batch illegally from 27.08.2002 by refusal to give them any duty. It is stated that
no enquiry was conducted by the management before terminating the services of its
workmen.
It is further alleged that management was illegally transferring its workers
from Delhi to its alleged factory at Rajasthan. However, the management did not
furnish any detailed Schedule of its workmen who would be transferred nor offered
any satisfactory reason for the so called transfer. It is stated that the transfer was
done against the standing orders. It is further stated that workers through their
union had challenged the so called transfer and management retaliated by illegally
removing 31 workers from 27.08.2002. It is stated that the dispute regarding illegal
transfer of 31 workers was already pending, when the management transferred
these two claimants herein also alongwith other 33 workmen.
It is further alleged that management was given a number of opportunities
by the Asst. Labour Commissioner to explain the reasons of transfer and the
conveyance and method of transfer but the management neither agreed for any
conveyance allowance, nor tried to implement the transfer as per provisions of
model standing orders and rather refused to give duty to 35 workmen on
Page 2 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)
POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
27.08.2002 and 27.09.2002. It is further alleged that the management issued letter
dated 19.11.2002 informing workman Pradeep Kumar about his removal from
service. It is further stated that the workman is unemployed eversince his illegal
termination by the management.
Workman prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages and
continuity of service alongwith the benefits attached to his respective service.
A separate statement of claim has been filed by Dharam Veer Singh wherein
it is stated that the workman Dharam Veer Singh was working with the
management on the post of Helper with last drawn salary of Rs. 2726/ since the
year 1997. The other averments and the prayer in the statement of claim of the
claimant are verbatim as stated in the statement of claim of workman Sh. Pradeep
Kumar and, hence, are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2. Management filed joint Written statement to the statement of claims filed by
the claimants thereby denying the stand as taken in the statement of claim and
pleaded that workman Pradeep Kumar and Dharam Veer are employees of the
management till date (i.e. till the date of filing of the WS) and they were shifted
from the factory of the management from Delhi to Bhivadi as the management
shifted its factory from Delhi to Bhivadi. It is pleaded that separate letters were
issued to the claimants on 19.02.2002 (sic. 19.09.2002) and they were directed to
report for duty on 23.09.2002 at the factory situated at Bhivadi. Vide these letters
management also offered them an extra allowance of Rs. 200/ per month and one
time shifting allowance for their family for traveling and incidental expenses and
the claimants accepted the same without any protest. It is stated by the
management that the claimants failed to join and comply with the said orders and
unlawfully and unauthorizedly started absenting themselves from their respective
duties. It is further stated that the claimants have been absenting from their duties
without any intimation or prior approval of the management and every effort of the
Page 3 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)
POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
management to call them back on duty at the transferred place proved infructuous.
As per the management, they had indulged into several correspondences vide
which workmen were called upon to report for duty at Bhivadi. As per the
management, the management had not terminated the services of the claimants till
the date of filing of the WS (i.e. 05.08.2005) and had also offered the claimants to
join the duties of the management. Though the management stated that they would
not pay any wages for the period of absentism on the principle of 'No Work No
wages''.
At last, management prayed for dismissal of the claim filed by the
workman.
Both the workmen did not file any rejoinder to the written statement of the
management.
3. ISSUES
Vide order dated 05.08.2005, following issues were framed:
1) Whether the workmen have been absenting unauthorizedly?.
2) Relief in terms of reference.
4. EVIDENCE
Workman Pradeep Kumar appeared in witness box as WW1 and relied
upon documents namely Ex. WW1/1 letter sent to the management by Asst.
Labour Commissioner; Ex. WW1/2 Notice dated 09.03.2002 issued by the
management informing all the workmen the factum that the manufacturing unit of
the management was being shifted to Bhivadi, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan in four
phases; Ex. WW1/3 Letter dated 30.09.2002 sent by Asst. Labour Commissioner
to management; Ex. WW1/4 Letter dated 20.09.2002 sent by Asst. Labour
Commissioner to management; Ex. WW1/5 Letter dated 20.09.2002 sent to the
management by the workman through union; Ex. WW1/5A Postal Receipt; Ex.
WW1/6 Complaint dated 23.09.2002 made by union to the Asst. Labour
Commissioner; Ex. WW1/7 Letter dated 19.11.2002 sent by management to the
Page 4 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)
POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
workman Pradeep Kumar; Ex. WW1/8 Reply dated 29.11.2002 sent by workman
to the management; Ex. WW1/9 Letter dated 03.09.2002 sent by union to the
Labour Commissioner; Ex. WW1/10 Letter sent by Asst. Labour Commissioner to
the management; Ex. WW1/11 Letter dated 03.09.2002 sent by union to the
Labour Commissioner; Ex. WW1/12 Letter dated 10.06.2002 sent to the Asst.
Labour Commissioner through union; Ex. WW1/13 Letter dated 14.06.2002 sent
by Asst. Labour Commissioner to management and Mark M1 to M3 letters sent by
management to the workman.
Workman Pradeep Kumar in his crossexamination was confronted
with the documents such as Ex. WW1/M1 to Ex. WW1/M3 - Letters sent by
management to the workman Pradeep Kumar.
Workman Dharambir Singh appeared in the witness box and filed his
evidence affidavit Ex. WW2/X. During his cross-examination, he was confronted
with documents, Ex. WW2/M1- Letter dated 19.09.02 sent by management to
workman Dharambir Singh; Ex. WW2/M-2 - Letter dated 04.10.02 sent by
management to the workman; Ex. WW2/M3- Letter dated 19.11.02 sent by
management to the workman. WE was closed on 24.03.2009.
Management examined Mr. Nand Kishore, Accountant of the
management as MW1 and filed affidavit as Ex. MW1/A and he relied upon the
documents which are exhibited as Ex. MW1/1, Ex. MW1/3 to Ex. MW1/7 letters
sent by the management to the workman Pradeep Kumar; Ex. MW1/2, Ex. MW1/8
Ex. MW1/10 and Ex. MW1/14 Postal receipts; Ex. MW1/9, Ex. MW1/11 and Ex.
MW1/13 Letters sent by management to the workman; Ex. MW1/15 AD card; Ex.
MW1/16 Letter issued by the management in favour of Mr. Nand Kishore; Ex.
MW1/17 Salary slip of Mr. Nand Kishore. ME was closed on 31.08.2016.
7. ARGUMENTS
I have heard Mr. Manish Malhotra, ld. counsel for the management.
Page 5 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)
POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
Arguments were not advanced by counsel for the workman despite opportunities
given, however, workman himself has apprised the court about the facts of the case.
Material available on judicial file perused very carefully.
8. MY ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:
Issues No. 1 & 2
1) Whether the workmen have been absenting unauthorizedly?.
2) Relief in terms of reference.
Both the issues are being dealt with under a common discussion inasmuch
as issues are interconnected in such a manner that decision of the court on one
issue will have direct bearing on the decision of the court on another issue. At the
outset, it is clarified that the claimant Nagdev did not even come forward to file
statement of claim nor appeared for evidence. Nonappearance of claimant Nagdev
infers that claimant Nagdev is not interested in pursuing this case. Hence, no
dispute award is passed against the claimant Nagdev.
Perusal of the file reveals that on 02.08.2006 the workman expressed their
willingness to join the services of the management at Bhivadi, Rajasthan and
management also agreed to the same. The workman were, thus, required to join the
duties of the management.
Order dated 02.08.2006 is reproduced as under:
''Both the workmen in person with Ms. Poonam Kaushik.
Sh. Anil Gupta , Manager Accounts is present for the management with
Sh. Jitesh Pandey, AR of the management.
The workmen have expressed their willingness to join the services of the
management at their new establishment at SP1192 E, Bhiwadi Industrial Area,
Phase IV, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The management has agreed to the same. It has
been agreed between the parties that the workmen will join the services of
management at their previous designation at the aforesaid address on the coming
Monday i.e. 07.08.2006 at 9 am and report to Mr. Ajay Anand. The management
will pay wages to the workmen equivalent to the minimum wages as prevalent in
Delhi at this time with an additional amount of Rs. 500/. The management will
also give to the workmen one time shifting allowance of Rs. 1250/. The workmen
Page 6 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)
POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
may collect the shifting allowance of Rs. 1250/ each from the account manager,
today present in court, tomorrow i.e. on 03.08.2006.
It is clarified that it is only a interim arrangement and the proceeding of
this case will continue as before. The representative of the management has
assured that on the dates of hearing of this case as and when the workmen will
appear neither their leave nor their wages will be deducted.
The application filed by the management for directing the workmen to join
their duties accordingly stand disposed off.
A copy of this order be given dasti to each of the workemen and also to the
representative of the management, today present in court.
To come up for WE on 30/10/2006.''
Thereafter on 30.10.2006 it was submitted that workmen Dharambir and
Pradeep are continuing to work with the management. The matter was further
posted for settlement as though the workman joined the services of the management
on 07.08.2006 but they stated that they still had some grievance. Even in the year
2008, the workman stated that they had still some problem regarding their working
with the management and they were directed to move an application. The
workman moved an application u/s. 33 (2A) on 26.08.2009. The management
meanwhile was also proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.04.2010. However, the
application for setting aside the exparte order dated 20.04.2010 was allowed vide
order dated 28.07.2010. Meanwhile an application was also moved on behalf of
management dated 27.08.2010 for amendment of the WS. The application of the
workman U/s. 33 (2A) was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2011. The application
of the management for amendment in the WS was also dismissed vide a separate
order dated 01.09.2011. In the application u/s. 33 (2A) Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 dated 14.05.2011, the workman stated that they had joined the duty at Bhivadi
office of the management and on 29.05.2009, the workman Dharambeer was beaten
by the officers of the management while he was on duty. It is stated that the
management did not allow the workman to enter the premises of management to
perform his duty after 29.05.2009 and even the earned wages for 01.05.2009 to
29.05.2009 were not paid to the workman. Thus, though the workman joined the
Page 7 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)
POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017
Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16
duties with the management during the proceedings of the present case and even
worked around three years with the management but thereafter both the parties had
their own version to state regarding the circumstances under which the relationship
between the parties again became sour.
In my considered opinion, conduct of the workman or management
pursuant to order dated 02.08.2006 cannot have any bearing on the decision of the
case on the issue involved herein in as much as reference is to be answered by the
court and issues deserves to be decided on the basis of material existing before the
making of reference by the appropriate government to this Court. It is a settled
proposition of law that scope of the reference is to be culled out from the facts and
circumstances which existed before the appropriate government at the time of
making a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication.
During the arguments, counsel for the management argued that as
the workmen were transferred to Bhivadi and were required to join their duties at
Bhivadi, Alwar, therefore, the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to
try and decide the present dispute/reference.
It is to be noted that this is a reference case and issue/dispute as to
jurisdiction of this Court has not been referred to this Court by the appropriate
Govt. It is well settled proposition of law that this Court is bound to confine its
adjudication strictly within the scope of terms of reference and cannot go beyond
the terms of reference. Thus, this Court cannot be said to be having authority to
decide the issue as to jurisdiction of this Court as the same is not within the scope
of reference, or, rather, putting it differently, management herein cannot be
permitted to raise the plea regarding jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the
industrial dispute in question/referred for adjudication. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in case law reported as Raj Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Rangi International Pvt. Ltd.
MANU/DE/2859/2009 has observed as under :
"8. If the respondent/management in the present case had any grievance
about the petitioner having approached the Labour Commissioner at Delhi and/or about the reference to the Labour Court being made by the Page 8 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017 Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16 Government of NCT of Delhi or if it was the case of the respondent/management that the jurisdiction if any was of the Government of Haryana, the stage for the respondent/management to take the said plea was at the time of reference or by way of challenge thereto. No such plea was taken by the respondent/management at that time and which proceeding before Labour Commissioner and reference to Labour Court at Delhi has attained finality. In my view, under Sections 10(4), 11 and 14 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court to whom the dispute had been referred was not entitled to take a plea that it lacked territorial jurisdiction or to refuse the adjudication referred to it on that ground.
9. In Workmen Employed by Hindustan Lever Limited v. Hindustan Lever Limited MANU/SC/0212/1984 the Supreme Court held that Section 10(1) of the Act confers power on the appropriate government to refer an existing dispute amongst others to, inter alia, the Labour Court for adjudication; the dispute therefore which can be referred for adjudication necessarily has to be an industrial dispute which would clothe the appropriate government with power to make the reference and the Labour Court to adjudicate it; it will thus be seen that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that the government from which reference is sought or which has referred the dispute was not clothed with the powers to refer the same or lacked the power to make the reference. The respondent in the present case did not challenge the authority of the government of NCT of Delhi which could refer the dispute to the Labour Court within its jurisdiction only, to make such reference.
10. A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0755/1999; AIR2000SC469 has held that an Industrial Tribunal is the creation of a statute and it gets jurisdiction on the basis of reference, it cannot go into the question of validity of reference. Similarly in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Om Prakash Sharma MANU/SC/8173/2006 also it was held that the jurisdiction of Labour Court emanates from order of reference, it could not have passed an order going beyond the term of reference and if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction the order suffers from a jurisdictional error capable of being corrected by the High Court.
11. Besides the aforesaid, I am otherwise also of the view that the industrial dispute arises at the place where the employer is exercising effective control. The state government having jurisdiction over the place from which the employer exercises effective control would have jurisdiction to make the reference under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case, the registered office of the respondent company is at Delhi and prima facie the effective control would be at Delhi. Nothing has been shown otherwise that there was a separate establishment at Gurgaon; only if a separate establishment had been proved could the dispute be said to have arisen at Gurgaon. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Workmen of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. v. Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. MANU/SC/0237/1967. The Supreme Court again in Bikas Bhushan Ghosh v. Novartis India Ltd. MANU/SC/7351/2007 has also laid down the test of part of the cause of action and held that even if a part of cause of action in the industrial dispute arises within the state, than that state will have jurisdiction to make a reference despite the fact that other states also have jurisdiction to make a reference. The petitioner in the present case has spent major time of Page 9 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017 Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16 his employment with the respondent at Delhi and for this reason also I am of the view that the reference was correctly made to the Labour Court at Delhi.
12. Above all, the Industrial Dispute Act is a social welfare legislation. Today the boundaries between Delhi and Gurgaon have disappeared. No prejudice has been shown to be caused to the respondent company by continuation of the proceedings in the Labour Court at Delhi. On the contrary, if the proceedings which have been underway for long and in which the respondent has participated without objection, are terminated and the petitioner directed to approach the authorities at Gurgaon, his sufferance would be insurmountable."
Also it has to be kept in mind that management herein namely M/s. Lark Laboratories (India) Ltd. is having its Regd. Office: A105/2, Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseII New Delhi 110020. THUS, THIS COURT PROCEEDS TO DECIDE THE REFERENCE ON MERITS.
Workman Pradeep in his examinationinchief (evidence affidavit) has reaffirmed the averments as stated in the statement of claim. In para. 2, he has stated that he was working with the management on the post of 'Helper' since the year 1997, however, during his crossexamination he has stated that he was working with the management since 13.04.94. He has admitted that the management was extending statutory benefits such as ESI, gratuity and Bonus and he had no dispute with the management till the time of shifting of the management at Bhiwadi. He has further admitted that though the notice for shifting to Bhivadi had not been served on him personally but it was pasted on the notice board of the factory. He has also admitted that notice of shifting was sent by post to his residence and he had received the same. He has further admitted that he did not report for duty at Bhiwadi and rather he had sent a reply to the notice dated 19.11.2002. In para. 7 of his evidence affidavit workman Pradeep has stated that management had issued letter dated 19.11.2002 informing him about his removal from services. However, during his crossexamination he has admitted that management never wrote any letter terminating his services and that the contents of para. 7 of his chief affidavit to that extent are wrong. In fact letter dated Page 10 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017 Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16 19.11.2002 of the management is Ex. WW1/7 which has beent sent to the claimant Pradeep regarding his unauthorized absence. Vide this letter, he was also directed to report for duty immediately. He was also informed that he will not be paid any wages for the period of his illegal absence and that appropriate disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against him. The workman Pradeep has further admitted that he cannot produce any letter written to the management showing his willingness to join his duties at Bhiwadi. The workman has further admitted that the management had mentioned about payment of conveyance allowance and one time shifting allowance of Rs. 500/ in the shifting notice, though according to him the amount was not paid to him.
The workman has further stated that he had gone to Bhiwari but the guard did not allow him to enter. However, no specific date has been given as to when he had gone to Bhiwadi for joining his duty and the date, month and year when the guard did not allow him to enter. In fact in his statement of claim as well as in evidence affidavit, he has nowhere pleaded that he had gone to Bhivadi to join his services and the guard did not allow him to enter and this statement of the workman Pradeep during his crossexamination is beyond pleadings. The workman during his further crossexamination admitted that he has received the Ex. WW1/M1 dated 05.06.2003 issued to the workman Pradeep for reporting for duty at Bhivadi unit. It is further stated in the letter Ex. WW1/M1 that as the workman has neither joined nor informed, he is once again requested to report for duty at Bhivadi unit. He has also admitted of receiving the letter Ex. WW1/M2 which is the letter dated 19.09.02. Vider this letter workman Pradeep was informed that his services were transferred to Bhivadi unit from 23.09.2002. He was also informed vide this letter that he would be paid one time shifting allowance with additional amount of Rs. 200/ per month so that workman may adjust himself. Workman has further admitted that he received the letter Ex. WW1/M3. Ex. WW1/M3 is the same letter dated 19.11.2002 which has been exhibited by the workman as Ex. WW1/7. Though the workman in his affidavit in para. 7 has stated that he was Page 11 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017 Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16 removed from the services by the management and was informed vide letter dated 19.11.2002. However, perusals of the contents of letter dated 19.11.2002 (Ex. WW1/7 as well as Ex. WW1/M3) shows that this was a notice issued to the workman regarding his absence from duties since 23.09.2002 and he was called upon to join his duties with immediate effect. There is absolutely no document on record to suggest that the services of workman Pradeep were terminated by the management.
Workmen Dharmabir in his crossexamination has stated that he has been working with the management since the year 2000 as a 'Helper' whereas in para. 2 of his affidavit in chief he has stated that he was working on the post of Helper since the year 1997. He has also admitted that the management was giving all statutory benefits like ESI, PF and bonus and minimum wages and he never had any dispute with the management( till the shifting of the industry) to Bhiwadi. He has further stated that he has not received any notice of shifting of factory to Bhiwadi and the management had one day called all the workers and told them to report at Bhiwadi. He admitted that he did not report at Bhiwadi and rather had written letters to the management opposing of shifting of factory to Bhiwadi. The workman Dharambir Singh could not produce copy of any such letter written to the management opposing of shifting of factory at Bhiwadi. He has further stated during his crossexamination that he had written lettes to the management that he is ready to join his duties at Bhiwadi but he could not produce any copy of such letter. He has admitted that only two workmen have filed their case and the remaining 450 workmen of the management had either joined at Bhiwadi or settled the dispute. During his further crossexamination he admitted that he received the shifting notice of Ex. WW2/M1 and also received the letter Ex. WW2/M2. He has also admitted receiving of the letter Ex. WW2/M3. He has also admitted that despite of receiving of the letter Ex. WW2/M1, Ex. WW2/M2, he did not report for duty with the management. Though he voluntarily stated that he did not report as the present proceedings were pending. He has further admitted that management never gave Page 12 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017 Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16 any termination letter. He also admitted that the management had only directed him to shift at Bhiwadi (and thus had not terminated his services). He admitted that factory of the management is already shifted to Bhiwadi. Ex. WW2/M1 is the letter dated 19.09.2009 informing the workman Dharambir Singh that his duties stood transferred to Bhiwadi w.e.f 23.09.2009. He was also informed that he would be paid one time shifting allowance and additional amount of Rs. 200/ per month so that the workman may adjust himself at Bhiwadi. Ex. WW2/M2 which also the workman has admittedly received is a letter dated 04.10.2002 regarding his unauthorized absence since 23.03.2009 and calling upon him to join his dues with immediate effect. Ex. WW2/M3 is the letter dated 19.11.2002 which also the workman Dharambir Singh admitted to have received from the management. Vide this letter the workman was issued notice regarding his absence since 23.09.2009 and he was called upon to join his duties with immediate effect. He was also informed that he would not be paid any wages for the period of illegal absence and that appropriate disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against him.
All the documents placed on record clearly establish that the management had never terminated the services of the workman concerned i.e. Dharambir Singh and Pradeep Kumar and in fact it was the workman concerned who despite receiving the notice regarding shifting and transfer to Bhiwadi had not reported for their duties at Bhiwadi. They had further admitted that they have received several letters from the management calling upon them to report their duties at Bhiwadi with immediate effect but despite receiving such letters also they did not report for duty at Bhiwadi.
Though the workmen in their statement of claim have stated that they did not furnish any detailed schedule of the transfer, however, document Ex. WW1/2 (filed by the workman) which is the notice u/s. 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shows that the management had proposed the transfer of its workmen in four phases as under:-
Page 13 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL)POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017 Nagdev & ors. Vs. M/s. Lark Laboratories India Ltd. ID No. 1207/16 Ist Phase Tablets Section IInd Phase Liquid Section IIIrd Phase Capsules/Dry Syrup Section IVth Phase Ointment Section Also, the workmen have stated in their statement of claim stated that the transfer was against the standing orders. However, nothing has been brought on record to establish during evidence that the transfer of workmen/shifting of the industry was against the standing orders.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, it can be safely concluded that quite possibly the case as pleaded by management in the WS is worth reliance by the Court. Issue no. 1 and no.2, accordingly, are decided against the workmen.
Relief, if any.
In view of my above findings on issue no.1 and 2, workmen are held to be entitled to no relief. Parties to bear their own costs.
9. Reference is answered accordingly.
10. A copy of the award be sent of Office of the concerned Deputy Labour Commissioner for further necessary action. File be consigned to Record Room after completing due formalities.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.06.2017 (KIRAN BANSAL) POLCXI: KKD COURTS: DELHI Page 14 of 14 (KIRAN BANSAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/03.06.2017