Delhi District Court
Sukhnandan Yadav vs Ms Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd on 19 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISHA TRIPATHY
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLCT13-000382-2015
Ref. No. :F.24(139)/15/SWD/Lab./4952-54
Dated : 03.07.2015
L.I.R. No.335/2016
Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav, S/o Sh. Jai Singh,
R/o 6/3922, Vashist Park,
Opp. Hari Nagar Police Station,
Pankha Road, Delhi.
Through Nav Jagriti Krantikari Mazdoor
Union (Regd.), W.P. 241, Wazirpur Village,
Delhi - 110052.
The requisite details of the workman in compliance of judgment
of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Director General of
Works (CPWD) Vs. Laljeet Yadav & Ors. W.P.(C) No.2540-
2021, DOD 16.07.2021 are as follows:-
Permanent Address of the workman:
Nangla Man Singh, P.O. Patiyali,
Distt. - Etah, Uttar Pradesh.
Any other address of workman available on record:
315, Gali No.18, Gopal Pur, Delhi - 110009.
Name and Mobile Number of A.R. for workman:
Sh. Pankaj Tripathy, Ld. AR for the workman.
Ch. No.C-48, C.L. Josheph Blk,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
Mobile Number : 9958901344.
Details of one of immediate family member of the workman:
Detail not furnished.
Aadhar Card and Phone Number of workman:
Detail not furnished. ......Workman.
Versus
(L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.1 of pages 20
M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,
6/3922, Vashist Park,
Opp. Hari Nagar Police Station,
Pankha Road, New Delhi.
(Sh. B.K. Rai and Sh. Jitesh Pandey,
Ld. AR for the management,
No other detail furnished. ...Management.
Date of receipt of reference : 18.09.2015
Date on which Award is passed : 19.10.2023
-:A W A R D:-
1.The workman Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav, raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of his services by the management. The appropriate Government on being satisfied regarding the existence of Industrial Dispute between the parties, made a reference for adjudication. The said reference is as under:-
"Whether Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav, S/o Sh. Jai Singh abandoned his job or his services have been illegally / and or unjustifiably terminated by the management and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?"
2. Notice of reference was issued to the workman, upon which statement of claim was filed by him. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the present dispute, as alleged by the workman in his statement of claim are as follows:-
Statement of Claim 2.1 The workman was appointed with the management on 22.09.2008 as Security Guard (Gunman) on last drawn salary of (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.2 of pages 20 Rs.11,088/- per month. He performed his duties honestly and diligently upto the satisfaction of the management.
2.2 The management took service from the workman at its various sites but never provided legal facilities such as appointment letter, E.S.I., P.F. contribution, leave encashment, wages for over time, bonus, gratuity etc. despite repeated demands by him and instead got annoyed and on 26.08.2013 illegally terminated his services without giving any prior notice or payment in lieu of notice in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also withheld other legal dues such as service compensation and earned wages of 26 days for the month of August 2013.
2.3 Thereafter, the workman sent a Demand Notice dated 09.01.2014 demanding continuity of service with full back wages but no response was received from the management.
Consequently, he filed a complaint before the Labour Conciliation Officer at Hari Nagar, Delhi, but the management failed to reinstate him in service with continuity of service alongwith full back wages and other legal dues.
2.4 The workman stated that despite his best efforts he could not get any job elsewhere and has remained unemployed since illegal termination of his services by the management. Accordingly, he prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages alongwith cost of litigation.
3. Notice of statement of claim was sent to the management and it filed its Written Statement contesting claim of the workman.
(L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.3 of pages 20 Reply/Written Statement
4. In its Written Statement, the management while denying the claim of the workman stated that the workman had joined the establishment of management on 21.09.2008. The work and conduct of the workman was not satisfactory and he was warned a number of times but he never paid any heed to the same. It further stated that the workman was not terminated by the management, rather, he started remaining absent from duty w.e.f. 26.08.2013 without prior information and permission and had abandoned his services on his own.
4.1 The management stated that it is engaged in the business of manpower supply, security services and supports service throughout India and are providing the services to various companies as and when required through its employees and accordingly, the workman being the employee of management was transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, considering the business exigencies and the administration requirement of the company, vide posting letter dated 26.08.2013. It stated that the letter of transfer in this regard was served to the workman in presence of other employees and his seniors but he refused to accept the same, upon which the letter was sent to him through registered post at his address. Since the workman refused to report for work at the place of transfer, there is no termination affected in the matter by the management and as such claim of the workman does not fall within the scope of Section 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4.2 It further stated that the workman was advised to get (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.4 of pages 20 his gun license renewed and immediately join his duties at the place of transfer i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, as a mandatory and necessary part and parcel of his job as a gunman but he failed to approach or join at the transferred place.
4.3 The management denied that workman was ever deprived of or ever demanded the facilities under the law such as appointment letter, annual leaves, casual leaves, over time, service record etc. on 26.08.2013 and stated that all legal facilities were provided to all its employee including the workman herein since the date of joining. It further stated that the wages of the workman used to be transferred in the bank account and were never withheld including that of month of August 2013. The management denied receipt of any Demand Notice and stated that it had offered the workman to resume his services before the Conciliation Officer and was still willing to offer job to the workman, if he was still interested in the job with immediate effect following the rule no work no pay.
Rejoinder
5. In rejoinder to the Written Statement of the management, all the averments of the management were denied and that of Statement of claim were reaffirmed by the workman.
Issues
6. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 19.12.2016, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of the court :-
(L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.5 of pages 20
(i). Whether the workman started remaining absent from 26.08.2013? OPM.
(ii). In terms of reference.
(iii). Relief.
Workman's Evidence
7. Thereafter, workman led his evidence and stepped into the witness box as WW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein he reiterated on oath the averments made in his statement of claim.
7.1 He relied on the following documents:-
(i). Copy of Identity Card Ex.WW1/1; and
(ii). Copy of Gun License Ex.WW1/2;
(iii). Office copy of legal Demand Notice dated 09.01.2014 Ex.WW1/3;
(iv). Postal receipt of legal Demand Notice Ex.WW1/4; and
(v). Office copy of complaint made to Assistant Labour Commissioner Ex.WW1/5.
(vi). Copy of attendance register Mark A. 7.2 WW-1 was cross examined by Ld. AR of the management wherein he admitted that he was posted as Security Guard as Gunman with the management and that for the post of Gunman, a proper and valid license is required. He admitted that at the time of his appointment he had submitted copy of his gun license with the management and whenever he his license renewed, same had to be deposited with the management. He (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.6 of pages 20 stated that he had initially applied for license on 31.10.2004, which was valid upto 31.12.2006. Subsequently, he had got his license renewed upto 2009 and had again got his license further renewed after 2009. He denied that he had received letter dated 30.10.2013 Ex.WW1/M1 and 13.03.2014 Ex.WW1/M2 from the management asking him to show a valid gun license, though, he admitted that the address on these letters was his correct address and that if any correspondence is made to him at the said address, same is received by him. He denied that he had received the letters Ex.WW1/M1 and Ex.WW1/M2 and had not replied to the same because he was not having a valid gun license. He further denied that he had received movement letter dated 26.08.2013 whereby he was transferred from Indus Ind Bank, Ashok Vihar to Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandni Chowk and stated that he was instructed by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Supervisor (who used to assign duty to him) to perform his duty at Indus Ind bank, Ashok Vihar for four days while he was on duty at HDFC Bank, Adarsh Nagar. However, he admitted that the duty used to be assigned to him by way of a letter and Sh. Ashok Kumar, Supervisor had not given any instruction in writing for assigning duty from HDFC Bank to Indus Ind bank and that he had performed duty at Indus Ind Bank without any written instructions. He admitted that after completing four days duty Indus Ind Bank, Ashok Vihar, he had not joined anywhere else. He failed to disclose the exact date of four days duty at Indus Ind Bank but stated that perhaps it was 22.08.2013. He stated that on 26.08.2013, his services were terminated but he was not given anything in writing and was denied duty by Sh. Ashok Kumar, (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.7 of pages 20 Supervisor. He stated that he was appointed at Sagar Pur Branch by one Sh. Dinesh Dutt, Supervisor, though, he was not given any appointment letter and instead was given posting / movement letter which was deposited in HDFC Bank, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh. He stated that he is not in possession of any letter given by the management after his termination and added that it was handed over to Sh. P.S. Sharma, Brnach Manager, Gurugram. He denied that he had not given any such letter to Sh. P. S. Sharma and had voluntarily left his job. He stated that he had approached Mr. Gehlot, Branch Manger at Delhi Branch after no action was taken by the management on his letter, however, on a question by Ld. AR for management, he admitted that he had not given any letter to Mr. Gehlot and had only made oral request to him. He denied that he had not approached Mr. Gehlot. He stated that after termination of his service, he was not working anywhere. He further stated that he had searched for job at Pooja Security Services at Ashok Vihar but was denied employment due to his previous termination. He further stated that he had left Delhi after three months of termination and had been living with his parents in village at Eta, Uttar Pradesh and had not searched for any job thereafter as he was helping his father in agriculture.
7.3 Thereafter, workman evidence was closed and case was fixed for management's evidence.
Management's Evidence
8. In support of its defence, management examined four witness i.e. Sh. Bablu Kumar Rai (Manager HR in the (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.8 of pages 20 management), Sh. Naresh Kumar (Sr. Manager HR from M/s Fireball Securitas & Consultation Pvt. Ltd.), Sh. Atul Yadav (UDC from ESIC) and Sh. Satyan Singh (Sr. SSA from EPFO) as MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 respectively.
8.1 MW-1 Sh. Bablu Kumar Rai tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A, wherein he reiterated on oath the averments made in the Written Statement of management and added that the workman was gainfully employed with M/s Fire Ball Securitas and Consultant Pvt. Ltd., having office at 1899, Udai Chand Marg, South Extension, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi - 110003 since 26.08.2013 after he abandoned his job with the management and he was not entitled to any relief under law. He relied on the following documents:-
(i). Office copy of Appointment Letter dated 21.09.2008 Ex.MW1/1; and
(ii). Office copy of Posting Leter dated 26.08.2013 Ex.MW1/2;
(iii). Copy of show cause notice dated
30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3;
(iv). Copy of absenteeism letter dated
13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4; and
(v). Copy of statement of bank transfer
reflecting wages paid to the workman
Ex.MW1/5.
8.2 MW-1 was cross examined by Ld. AR for the workman
wherein he stated that the work and conduct of the workman was not good as he was not serious about his work and despite verbal warnings did not mend his ways. However, he admitted that no show cause notice was issued to workman with regard to his bad work and conduct and no domestic enquiry was conducted (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.9 of pages 20 against him in this regard. He admitted that he had not personally seen gun license of workman and stated that supervisor, who was the immediate boss of the workman had asked the workman to show his gun license, but the workman failed to show his gun licensee to the supervisor. He denied that show cause notice Ex.MW1/3 and letter Ex.MW1/4 were not sent to the workman by the management or that the same were not received by the workman. He added that the copy of postal receipts through which Ex.MW1/3 and letter Ex.MW1/4 were dispatched have been placed on record. He admitted that except letter Ex.MW1/4, no other letter was sent to the workman asking him to join his duties. He stated that management was ready to take the workman back on duty without continuity in service and back wages.
8.3 MW-2 Sh. Naresh Kumar, summoned witness from M/s Fireball Securitas & Consultant Pvt. Ltd., produced online record / information of workman regarding his employment with M/s Fireball Securitas & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. vide Mark A (colly.). He was cross examined by Ld. AR for the workman wherein he stated that as per records of M/s Fireball Securitas & Consultant Pvt. Ltd., the workman joined service of M/s Fireball Securitas & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. on 12.09.2013 and as per record of PF portal, he left the service of the said company on 25.10.2020. He denied that he has filed a forged document Mark A (Colly.) and for this reason he has not filed certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He further denied that workman has not worked with M/s Fireball Securitas & Consultant Pvt. Ltd.
(L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.10 of pages 20 8.4 MW-3 Sh. Atul Yadav is another summoned witness, from ESIC, Branch Office Maya Puri, New Delhi. He produced the summoned record i.e. ESCI record of workman for the period from April 2013 to March 2014 before the court and proved the same on record as Ex.MW3/A (colly.). He was cross examined by Ld. AR for the workman wherein he conceded that management can login from its login ID of authorized website of ESIC and it can make entry relating to its employees in the authorized website of ESIC and also make exit entry of its employees.
8.5 MW-4 Sh. Satyan Singh is also a summoned witness from EPFO, Delhi (Central), Wazirpur, Delhi. He produced his identity card Ex.MW4/1 and computerized account statement/ ledger in respect of the workman herein bearing, P.F. No. DLCPM-00205130000022249, duly attested by Assistant PF Commissioner Ex.MW-4/2 (colly.). He was not cross examined on behalf of workman despite opportunity.
8.6 Thereafter, management evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
9. Neither any arguments were addressed nor any written submissions were filed on behalf of workman despite opprtunity. Arguments were addressed by Advocate Sh. Rishabh Tiwari, on behalf of management. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and perused the record carefully
10. My issue wise findings are as under:-
11. Since issue no.1 & 2 are interconnected, both the issues are taken up together for discussion.
(L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.11 of pages 20
12. -:ISSUE No.1 & 2:-
(i). Whether the workman started remaining absent from 26.08.2013? OPM.
(ii). In terms of reference.
"Whether Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav, S/o Sh.
Jai Singh abandoned his job or his services have been illegally / and or unjustifiably terminated by the management and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?"
12.1 On these issues, the workman deposed that he was working as a Gunman with the management and performed his duties honestly and diligently upto the satisfaction of the management, yet, the management failed to provide legal facilities such as appointment letter, E.S.I., P.F. contribution, leave encashment, wages for over time, bonus, gratuity etc. despite repeated demands by him and due to his insistence for these legal facilities, it got annoyed and illegally terminated him from his service on 26.08.2013 without giving any prior notice or payment in lieu of notice in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also withheld other legal dues such as service compensation and earned wages of 26 days for the month of August 2013.
12.2 In support of his claim, the workman produced copy of Identity Card Ex.WW1/1, copy of Gun License Ex.WW1/2, copy of legal Demand Notice dated 09.01.2014 Ex.WW1/3, Postal receipt of legal Demand Notice Ex.WW1/4, copy of complaint made to Assistant Labour Commissioner Ex.WW1/5 and copy of attendance register Mark A. (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.12 of pages 20 12.3 None of these documents produced by the workman pertain to or throw light upon the circumstances under which the services of the workman with the management came to an end. The workman has not disclosed either in his Demand Notice or in his complaint before the Labour Authority as well as in his statement of claim and evidence by way of affidavit before this court as to how his services were terminated by the management. In his cross examination, the workman admitted that no written termination order was issued to him by the management but he claimed that on 26.08.2013 he was denied duty by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Supervisor. In his cross examination, the workman further claimed that he had approached one Mr. Gehlot, Branch Manager but no action was taken on his letter. However, on being questioned further, he made a U turn and admitted that he had not given any letter to Mr. Gehlot and only requested him. Thus, it is seen that there was no termination order issued against the workman by the management. Though, the workman claimed that he was denied duty by his Supervisor, it is seen that no complaint was made by the workman to higher officials regarding non assignment of duty by his Supervisor. The workman has also failed to show that he made any effort whatsoever to find out if his services were actually terminated by the management or not and if so, he has not taken any action to show that he was interested in continuing with his duty. Even the attendance register Mark A, produced by the workman itself shows that he had not attended to his duty after 21.08.2013. Thus, the evidence produced by the workman regarding termination of his service by the management is not beyond (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.13 of pages 20 doubt.
12.4 On the other hand MW-1 deposed that the work and conduct of workman was not satisfactory and a number of warnings were issued to him in this regard, but he failed to pay any heed to the same. He further deposed that the workman was neither deprived of nor he demanded the facilities under the law such as appointment letter, annual leaves, casual leaves, over time, service record etc. on 26.08.2013. He further deposed that all legal facilities were provided by the management to all its employee including the workman herein since the date of joining and even wages of the workman were never withheld including that of month of August 2013 and the same used to be transferred in the bank account of the workman.
12.5 He further deposed that the services of workman were never terminated by the management, rather, he was advised to get his gun license renewed and immediately join his duties at the place of transfer. However, the workman failed to join at the place of transfer and chose to abandon his duty.
12.6 In support of his deposition, MW-1 produced copy of Appointment Letter dated 21.09.2008 Ex.MW1/1, copy of Posting Letter dated 26.08.2013 Ex.MW1/2, copy of show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3, copy of absenteeism letter dated 13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4 and copy of statement of bank transfer reflecting wages paid to the workman Ex.MW1/5.
12.7 Appointment Letter dated 21.09.2008 Ex.MW1/1 is not disputed by the workman. The fact that the workman has stated in his statement of claim that no appointment letter was issued to (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.14 of pages 20 him, yet he has not challenged appointment letter Ex.MW1/1 shows that his claim regarding non issuance of appointment letter in his statement of claim is incorrect.
12.8 Ex.MW1/2 is the order of posting dated 26.08.2013 whereby the workman was transferred from Indus Ind Bank, Ashok Vihar to Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandni Chowk. Even though the workman claimed that he had not received transfer letter dated 26.08.2013, he admitted that he had worked at Indus Ind Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank on the instructions of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Supervisor and had left after completing four days duty there and had not joined anywhere else. He failed to explain as to why he left his duty after completing his four days duty at Indus Ind Bank, Ashok Vihar and did not resume his duty with the management, particularly, when no termination order was issued to him.
12.9 Ex.MW1/3 is the show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 whereby the workman was asked to explain in writing his failure to renew his gun license and to join duty at transferred place of posting and his absence since then. Ex.MW1/4 is the letter dated 13.03.2014 whereby the workman was informed that due to his failure to give any reply to show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 as well as continuous absence from duty, his name was being struck off from the muster roll of the company w.e.f. 13.03.2014.
12.10 The workman again disputed receipt of Show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3 as well as letter dated 13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4, however, he admitted that the address mentioned therein was his correct address. He also did not (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.15 of pages 20 dispute the genuineness of the copy of postal receipt through which these letters Ex.MW1/3 and Ex.MW1/4 were dispatched at his address.
12.11 At this stage, it will be useful to have a look at Section 27 of General Clauses Act.
12.12 Section 27 General Clauses Act lays down as under:
"27. Meaning of service by post--
Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
12.13 Admittedly, the address on which the Show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3 and letter dated 13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4 was sent, was correct address of the workman. The postal receipts through which the above said notice and letter were sent are also not disputed. Although, a suggestion was given by Ld. AR for workman to MW-1 that Show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3 and letter dated 13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4 were not received by the workman, yet no witness from Postal Department was examined by the workman to prove that he actually did not receive the above said notice and letter (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.16 of pages 20 and that he was not at fault for such non-delivery. Under the circumstances, the workman has failed to rebut the presumption of due service of document and as such by virtue of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, Show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3 and letter dated 13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4 are deemed to have been served upon him. The workman has not led any evidence that despite service of Show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3 and letter dated 13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4, he either sent any response to the same or approached the management for resuming his duty.
12.14 Not only that, the workman has unequivocally admitted in his cross examination that he was working as a gunman with the management and for the said post of gunman proper and valid gun license is required. It is the case of the management that the gun license of the workman had expired and he was asked to get his gun license renewed and report at the transferred place of posting, however, the workman failed to get his gun license renewed and to report at his transferred place of posting. The workman has not led any evidence to suggest that he had produced his valid gun license or submitted a copy thereof before the management pursuant to receipt of Show cause notice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.MW1/3 and letter dated 13.03.2014 Ex.MW1/4. The workman produced on record his gun license Ex.WW1/2 (colly.) (four pages), which was initially issued for the period from 19.02.2004 to 02.08.2004 and was stated to have been periodically renewed from time to time and was lastly renewed uptill 20.01.2005 by the concerned authority at Eta. However, on the last page of Ex.WW1/2 (colly.), renewal is shown to have (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.17 of pages 20 been done by SDM, Patiyali initially uptill 31.12.2009, then uptill 31.12.2012, then uptill 31.12.2015 and lastly till 31.12.2018. The said page does not contain the name or any other description of the gun license holder. The fact that the first three pages bear the stamp of concerned authority at Eta, whereas the last page bears the stamp of Authority at Patiyali, raises doubt about the genuineness of the fourth page of Ex.WW1/2 (colly.). The workman has also failed to show that the fourth page in question is from the same gun license and has also failed to explain how the license had been renewed by the different authority since 2009 onwards. In view of the same, the workman has failed to show that he had a valid gun license issued by the competent authority for the alleged period. It also corroborates the case of the management that the workman had failed to produce his renewed gun license, which was essential for performance of his duty.
12.15 Coming to the claim of workman regarding unpaid wages for the month of August 2013, MW-1 produced Ex.MW1/5, a copy of statement of bank account whereby payment of wages for the month of August 2013 amounting to Rs.7,154/- on 16.09.2013 is reflected. The workman also has not disputed copy of statement of his bank account Ex.MW1/5. Thus, in the wake of above said statement of account, the plea of the workman that his wages for the month of August 2013 were withheld is also falsified.
12.16 Last but not the least, on the issue of gainful employment, the workman deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that since termination of his service by the management, (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.18 of pages 20 he was still unemployed and despite his best effort he could not get any job, whereas, MW-1 deposed that workman was gainfully employed with M/s Fire Ball Securitas and Consultant Pvt. Ltd., having office at 1899, Udai Chand Marg, South Extension, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi - 110003 since 26.08.2013 after he abandoned his job with the management. The deposition of MW-1 is supported and corroborated by MW-2 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Sr. HR Manager at M/s Fire Ball Securitas and Consultant Pvt. Ltd., having office at 1899, Udai Chand Marg, South Extension, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi - 110003, who confirmed that the workman was working with M/s Fire Ball Securitas and Consultant Pvt. Ltd. From 12.09.2013 to 25.10.2020. Deposition of MW-1 is also supported by MW-4 Sh. Satyan Singh, Official from EPFO, who produced the EPF record of the workman vide Ex.MW4/2 (colly.) which confirmed that contribution in workman's EPF account was being made even after alleged termination of his service with the management herein and it shows that workman was in the employment even after alleged termination of his service by the management.
12.17 Thus, from the discussed hereinabove it is clear that no termination letter was issued to the workman by the management. Even though the workman alleged that he was orally informed by Supervisor regarding termination of his service, he failed to approach the management to confirm or to request resumption of his duty. It is further clear that the management had directed the workman to report at place of transfer with valid / renewed gun license but he failed to report for duty in pursuance of the said direction. It is also clear that the (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.19 of pages 20 workman had given false testimony regarding non payment of wages for August 2013 as well as regarding the unemployment after alleged termination of his service. Considering the totally of facts and circumstances, the evidence and the reasons discussed above, management's version that the workman voluntarily left his job with the management after failing to get his gun license renewed and join at the transferred place of posting despite receiving movement order dated 26.08.2013 and subsequently gained employment elsewhere (M/s Fire Ball Securitas and Consultant Pvt. Ltd.), appears to be correct, whereas, the claim of the workman that he was terminated from his service by the management on account of persistent demand for legal facilities does not inspire confidence. Therefore, I am of the view that the workwoman had voluntarily left his service with the management and was not terminated from his services. Issues no.1 and 2 stand decided accordingly in favour of the management and against the workman.
13. -:RELIEF:-
13.1 In view of my findings on issues no.1 & 2, I hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief from the management.
14. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms.
Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for necessary compliance, as per rules.
15. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Announced in the open (MANISHA TRIPATHY) Court on 19.10.2023) Presiding Officer Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (L.I.R. No.335/2016) (Sh. Sukhnandan Yadav Vs. M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.) Page No.20 of pages 20