Delhi District Court
Nsic Limited Which Is A Government ... vs Unknown on 17 March, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT No.XX FAST TRACK KKD. COURTS DELHI
ID 628/2006 (Old No.470/1997)
BETWEEN
THE MANAGEMENTS OF
M/s M.M. KENKA METAL PVT LTD
16/22, 23, Village Budhpur, Alipur.
Delhi 110 042 ..MANAGEMENT
AND
WORKMEN S/SMT. SEEMA, SHANTI, SHAKUNTALA & RAMA
c/o Engg Workers Lal Jhanda Union,
45-A, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi 110 007 ..WORKMEN
Date of receipt of reference 26.4.1997
Date of hearing the final arguments Not heard as the matter got
settled between the parties
Date of award 17.3.2008
A W A R D
Workmen S/Smt.Seema,Shanti, Shakuntala & Rama have
raised an Industrial dispute against the management of M/s M.M.Kenka
Metal Pvt Ltd, for termination of their services by the management and on
being satisfied with regard to existence of an Industrial Dispute between the
workmen & the management the appropriate Government vide order no.
F.24(6457)/96-Lab/8805-09 dated 26.3.1997 referred the Industrial
Dispute to the Court with the following terms of reference :
Whether the services of S/Smt. Seema, Shanti, Shakuntala &
Rama have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled
and what directions are necessary in this respect?
-2- ID 628/2006
The workmen filed their joint statement of claim stating
therein that workmen Seema, Shankuntala & Rama had worked with the
management at the post of Helper for the last about 1½ years prior to the
date of their termination and their last drawn salary was Rs.800/- per month
Workman Shakuntala had worked with the management at the post of
Helper for the last about 2 years prior to the date of her termination and her
last drawn salary was Rs.800/- per month. The workmen had worked
honestly & diligently and they did not give any chance of complaint to the
management. The management was not providing the legal facilities to the
workmen such as attendance card, appointment card, wages register and
was also not paying the wages as per Minimum Wages Act. When the
workmen talked to the management regarding the aforesaid facilities, the
management got annoyed and adopted revengeful attitude and terminated
the services of the workmen with effect from 15.7.1996, illegally,
unlawfully and without serving any notice or without payment of notice
pay, along with the legal dues. The management has not complied with the
provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and has not
paid the earned wages of the workmen for the month of June 1996. The
workmen made a complaint in the Labour Department through their Union
The Labour Inspector inspected the establishment of the management but
the management refused to take back the workmen on duty. On 10.8.1996
-3- ID 628/2006
the workmen served demand notice upon the management but the
management did not care for the same. The workmen filed their claim
before the Conciliation officer. The management did not co-operate with
the Conciliation officer and remained adamant and therefore the
conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to the Court.
The workmen are unemployed from the date of their illegal termination as
they could not find alternative employment despite their best efforts. The
workmen are still ready to join the duty with the management. It has been
stated that termination of the services of the workmen is quite illegal,
unlawful and arbitrary. Accordingly it has been prayed that the
management may be directed to reinstate the workmen with full back
wages & continuity of service along with the earned wages for the month of
July 1996. The workmen have also claimed the cost of litigation.
The management contested the claim of the workmen and
filed written statement stating therein that there is no relationship of
employer & employee between the parties. It has been submitted that Smt.
Seema, Smt.Shanti, Smt,Shakuntala & Smt. Rama were never in the
employment of the management at any stage. M/s Kanika Metal Ltd has
started its production only in June 1997. Prior to that the machines
supplied by National Small Industries Corporation Limited were defective
-4- ID 628/2006
and the plant failed to work. Only two technical personnel were
maintaining and repairing the machines. There had been litigation between
the management and the National Small Industries Corporation Limited
and the same has been recently settled and National Small Industries
Corporation Limited has given benefit of interest and have taken three
defective machines. Had there been any production with the management
the aforesaid benefit would not have been granted to the management by
NSIC Limited which is a Government Undertaking, therefore the claims of
the claimants are false even to their knowledge. The claimants are
professionals and it has been learnt that they have filed similar cases
against 2-3 other companies to gain undue advantage. The management has
specifically denied the employment of the claimants with the management.
It has been stated that since there was no employer & employee relationship
between the parties, the question of working honestly & diligently does not
arise and there is no question of grant of legal facilities, and the
management getting annoyed and adopting revengeful attitude. It has been
denied that the services of the claimants were terminated by the
management with effect from 15.7.1996. The management has denied the
service of demand notice. It has been stated that the management has not
received any notice or information from the office of the Conciliation
officer. The management has denied all other averments made by the
-5- ID 628/2006
claimants in their statement of claim and has stated that the management
has nothing to do with the employment or unemployment of the claimants.
The claimants are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, it has been prayed
that the claim of the claimants may be dismissed with costs.
The workmen filed rejoinder to the written statement of the
management and controverted the averments made in the written statement
and reiterated their stand.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed
1.Whether there existed no relation as employee & employer between the parties?
2. As per terms of reference.
Earlier, in the present case, an award was passed against the workmen on 7.2.2001, by the Court of Ms.Rekha N Dabas, the then learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No.I, Kkd. Courts, Delhi, which was later on, set aside on the application of the workmen vide order dated 23.8.2003. Workmen Seema & Shanti have not pursued the matter. Accordingly it appears that they are not interested in pursuing the matter. The claimant Rama expired during the pendency of the dispute and her Legal representatives were brought on record.
-6- ID 628/2006
When the matter was at the stage of cross-examination of workman Shakuntala, and cross-examination of Pyare Lal - LR of deceased workman Rama, the parties arrived at a settlement.
Workman Shakuntala has stated that she has settled the matter with the management for Rs.10,000/- towards full & final settlement of her claim against the management. She has received Rs.10,000/- in cash from the management today in the Court towards full & final settlement of her claim against the management. Now she has no claim against the management. She will not claim reinstatement, back wages or any other monetary or non monetary benefit from the management. The matter may be disposed of in terms of settlement. Statement of the workman Shakuntala recorded.
Sh.Pyare Lal for himself and on behalf of other legal representatives of the deceased workman Rama has stated that he for himself and on behalf of other legal representatives of deceased workman Rama, has settled the matter with the management for Rs.9,000/- towards full & final settlement of the claim of the deceased workman against the management. He has received Rs.9,000/- in cash from the management today in the Court towards full & final settlement of the claim of the deceased workman against the management. Now he & the other legal -7- ID 628/2006 representatives of the deceased workman Rama have no claim against the management. They will not claim reinstatement, back wages or any other monetary or non monetary benefit from the management. The matter may be disposed of in terms of settlement. Statement of Sh.Pyare Lal husband of the deceased workman recorded.
Sh.Akshay Kapoor son of Sh.Praveen Kapoor (Director of the management) has stated that the matter has been settled with the workman Shakuntala for Rs.10,000/- towards full & final settlement of the claim of the workman Shakuntala against the management. The management has paid Rs.10,000/- to the workman Shakuntala in cash, today in the Court, towards full & final settlement of claim of the workman Shakuntala against the management. Now the workman Shakuntala has no claim against the management. She will not claim reinstatement, back wages or any other monetary or non monetary benefit from the management. The matter may be disposed of in terms of settlement. He has further stated that the matter has been settled with the legal representatives of the deceased workman Rama and he has paid Rs.9,000/- in cash to Pyare Lal legal representative of the deceased workman Rama towards full & final settlement of the claim of the deceased workman Rama against the management. Now the legal representative of -8- ID 628/2006 the deceased workman Rama have no claim against the management and they will not claim reinstatement, back wages and/or any other monetary or non monetary benefit from the management. Statement of Sh.Akshay Kapoor son of Sh.Praveen Kapoor (Director of the management recorded).
In view of the statement of the workman Shakuntala & statement of Sh.Pyare Lal - legal representative of the deceased workman Rama and statement of Sh.Akshay Kapoor son of Sh.Praveen Kapoor (Director of the management), I am of the considered opinion that the matter has been settled between the workman Shakuntala & legal representatives of the deceased workman Rama and the management and now there is no dispute between them. The workman Shakuntala has received Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in cash, and Sh.Pyare Lal
- LR of the deceased workman Rama has received Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) today in the Court, from the management towards full and final settlement of their claims against the management. Now the workman Shakuntala & Legal representatives of deceased workman Rama have no claim against the management and they will not claim reinstatement, back wages or any other monetary and/or non monetary benefit from the management. Accordingly, now there is no dispute between the workman Shakuntala & Legal Representatives of deceased workman Rama and the -9- ID 628/2006 management. As such, the award in respect of workman Shakuntala and legal representatives of workman Rama, is passed in terms of the settlement between the parties and No Dispute Award in respect of the workmen Shanti & Seema is passed as they are not interested in pursuing the matter. The reference is answered accordingly. Copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court
on this 17th day of March 2008 (SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer - Labour Court No.XX
(Fast Track) Karkardooma Courts Delhi