Delhi District Court
Sh. G.S. Yadav vs M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Limited on 21 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR-I
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-X
DWARKACOURTS, DELHI.
DID No. : 2458/16
Date of Institution of the case : 05.04.2010.
Date on which Award is passed : 21.07.2018.
SH. G.S. Yadav
S/o Sh. H. L.Yadav
R/o D-79, Madhu Vihar, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi
C/o Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union
D-2/24, Sultanpuri,
New Delhi-86 .................Workman
Versus
THE MANAGEMNT OF
1. M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
B-type office, D Block,
Vikas puri Division near Arya Samaj Mandir,
New Delhi-18
Manager Sh. Rakesh Kaul
2. M/s Flaxivan Workforce Solution Pvt.Ltd.
CICD Tower, Hauz Khas Institution Area
New Delhi-17
3. M/s Safeguard Manpower Consultants,
220, First floor, DDA Market
near Videocon Tower
Jhandewalan, New Delhi-55 ...............Managements
D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.1 out of 23
-: A W A R D :-
1. By this award, I shall dispose of the claim of the
workman as filed by him directly before the court against the
Management as per notification of Delhi Government under
Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
2. Brief facts as stated by the workman in his claim are that
the workman was appointed by the management on 18.05.2005 in
the post of Field Executive and his last drawn salary was Rs.
5000/-. He discharged his duties with entire satisfaction and
without any complaint. It is claimed that M/s BSES Rajdhani Power
Ltd. (management no.1) had held an interview and directed the
workman to work at M/s Flexivan Workforce Solutions Pvt. Ltd
(management no.2) where he worked w.e.f. 18.05.2005 to
12.02.2008. It is claimed that the workman was re-appointed by the
management no.1 through M/s Safeguard Manpower Consultants
(management no.3). It is claimed that despite the fact that the
management no.1 had permanent work for the labours but they
were taking their job through the contractors. It is claimed that the
managements were not providing the appointment letter, wages
slip, Attendance card, Identity card, ESI, PF, Casual leave and
earned leave, transfer letter, bonus etc to the workman as per
Labour Act. It is claimed that neither management no.1 nor
management no.2 and 3 had any license to take the labour work
from the workman through the contractors. When the workman
D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.2 out of 23
demanded the above facilities, the management no.1 directed to
management no.3 not to take any work from the workman w.e.f.
30.09.2009, accordingly, they did not allow him to work. It is
claimed that despite the assurance given by the managements,
they did not reinstate the workman on work. It is claimed that the
workman had sent a demand notice dt. 17.03.2010 to the
managements through the union they did not reply the same. It is
claimed that the managements neither gave any opportunity to
explain nor conducted any inquiry against him. It is claimed that
the workman is unemployed since the date of termination i.e.
30.09.2009. It is prayed that the managements may be given
direction to reinstate the workman with full back wages and
continuity of his services with all the benefits.
3. Notice of the claim was issued to the managements.
Management no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating
therein that the workman has no relationship of any nature
whatsoever with the management no.1. There was no privity of
contract between the workman and the answering management. It
is submitted that the workman was infact appointed by
managements no.2 and 3. The management no.1 had never
issued salary slip or appointment letter to the workman. The
management no.2 and 3 as the case may be, has been the
controlling authority of the workman and have been the employer
of the workman. The answering management has never employed
the workman. It is further submitted that the workman has no
D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.3 out of 23
contract of employment with answering management in any
manner/capacity whatsoever. It is further submitted that the
workman was not doing any kind of job on the instruction of
answering management. It is submitted that the management no.1
had licence to take service of the contractors. The statement of
claim filed by the workman is denied by management no.1.
Management no.2 also appeared and filed written
statement stating therein that the claimant has put forward
absolutely false, frivolous and concocted facts before the forum
and as such the claim filed by the workman is liable to be
dismissed and barred for the reason of mis-joinder of necessary
party. It is claimed that no claim is made out against management
no.2. It is submitted that the management no.2 takes on roll
certain contractual and fixed terms employees as per need base
requirements. The said employee was engaged to meet out
specific demand of clients, with specialized focus being essence of
today's hiring. As such the services of the said contractual
employee are taken for a fixed period of employment and the said
employment period continues and ends with the project/work for
which he is employed. On such basis, the workman herein was
selected for the post of field executive and was deputed with the
management no.1 and after completion of project/work the
workman was free to move and the management herein did not
hold any objection on workman joining another job. It is submitted
that the answering respondent had licence for the work to be done
at BSES sites. The answering management admits the statement D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.4 out of 23 of claim to the extent of his appointment w.e.f. 18.05.2005 and that the present workman herein worked till 31.01.2008. It is submitted that the workman had left the job of management no.2 on 31.01.2008 on his own. The statement of claim filed by the workman is denied by management no.2.
Management no.3 also appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the claimant was no more with the answering management as his services were no more required by the principals, hence there was no occasion where the present dispute may have been raised and making responsible the management no.3. It is submitted that the claimant/workman worked with the management no.3 from 14.03.2008 to 30.09.2009 as a runner boy, whose work needed constant supervision. It is further submitted that the claimant/workman had himself opted for the other employment, hence there was no occasion where the management might have contravened the provision of I.D. Act.
4. The workman filed the rejoinders to the written statements of the managements in which the objection/ claim taken by the managements has been strongly controverted and denied and averments as raised in the statement of claim re-asserted and reiterated.
5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed in the present matter on 12.12.2011:-
D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.5 out of 23(I). Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the claimant/workman and the management no. 1? OPW
(ii) Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the managements? OPW
(iii) Relief.
6. No other issues arose or pressed and matter was listed WE.
7. In support of his claim, workman examined himself as WW1. He relied upon documents Exs. WW1/1 to WW1/27 on record.
Witness was cross examined by the management. The workman admitted that Ex. WW1/19 is his salary slip for the month of June, 2006 which has been issued by the management no. 2 M/s Adecco Flexi One Pvt. Ltd. He admitted that his employer was M/s Adecco Flexi One Pvt. Ltd. and voluntarily stated that he was employed by the management no.1 at the first instance. He denied that his volunteered portion is false. He further denied that he was never employed by the management no. 1 or was never in the employment of the management no.1 at any point of time or that he was never issued any salary by the management no.1. He stated that he is unable to produce any other document in support of his claim of being in the employment of the management no.1 apart D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.6 out of 23 from the documents already filed by him, on record. He further denied that he cannot produce any documents in this regard as he never in the employment of the management no.1.
In the cross examination by the management no.2, he stated that he worked with the management no. 2 till 12.02.2008 and had pending dues with management no.2. He admitted that his wage slip Ex. WW1/10, PF and ESI deductions are being shown at Point A. He admitted that in document Ex. WW1/19, PF and ESI Deductions are being shown at Point A. He admitted that in document Ex. WW1/19 his PF number has been disclosed. He voluntarily stated that he was never given benefit of the same. He admitted that he was having a contractual employment with the management no. 2. He denied that he had wrongly mentioned in his affidavit that management was not providing ESI and PF facility to him. He did not know if the management no. 2 was having a contractual license and he was not provided the copy of any said contract. He denied that there was no unfair labour practice committed by the management no.2 qua him. He also denied that there are no dues pending qua him from the management no. 2. He denied that all legal compliances were made by the management no.2. He admitted that he had not filed any LCA petition or any other claim against the management.
In his cross examination by management no.3 he deposed that he was recruited initially in BSES after a interview. No document was on record for calling him for interview by the BSES. He voluntarily claimed that the office copy of the letter was D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.7 out of 23 taken back by the BSES at the time of interview. It is admitted that he had joined M/s Safe Guards w.e.f. 14.03.2008. It is correct that he had submitted application and interviewed as mentioned in his appointment letter Ex. WW1/26. He voluntarily stated that at that time the interview committee was convened by the BSES comprising of around 5-6 members. He was not covered under the ESI and EPF and no contribution was being deducted.
After seeing the ESI (TIC) identity card issued by the ESI Department Ex. WW1/9, he stated that he was not being given any medical care/treatment on the basis of that card. He had served management no. 2 i.e. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. up to 12.02.2008.
He claimed that as there was a time gap of one month given by the BSES that is why he joined management no. 3 i.e. M/s Safe Guard w.e.f. 14.03.2008. He conceded that no document was placed on record in this regard. He denied that he had withdrawn his EPF. He denied that no PF was withdrawn from the EPF Department on the recommendations of management no. 3. He further denied that he had submitted the PF withdrawal form and mentioned therein reason of leaving the job as "resigned from service". He voluntarily deposed that he had not received any PF number, no question therefore arose for withdrawal of the PF. As per the advise contained in email which is Ex. WW1/27, he was to report to M/s Safe Guard on 30.09.2009 but he did not report to M/s Safe Guard. He claimed that he was asked to sign blank paper by one Sh. Subhash Chand Yadav to which he declined and he D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.8 out of 23 was told that he should resign. He was detained in the office up to 4 P.M. The management did not provide him any address of M/s Safe Guard. M/s Safe Guard used to issue identity card, which are Ex. WW1/20 to Ex. WW1/22. He admitted that he sent a demand letter dated 17.03.2010 Ex. WW1/1 to the managements. He had not placed on record any document showing the receipt of the notice of the management no. 3 i.e. M/s Safe Guard. No document has been placed on record in support of the facts as mentioned in his claim about the violation of labour laws as also the license under Contract (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970. He did not visit management no.3 after 30.09.2009 as no address was provided to him by the management of M/s BSES.
He deposed that he did not have any knowledge about section 2 (oo), Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended up to date) as mentioned in his claim as well as his affidavit. He was not a member of Hindustan Engg. & General Mazdoor Union. He voluntarily stated that he had asked the union to issue him the membership slip, but the same has not been placed on record.
He deposed that he was living with his family comprising of himself, his wife and one son at Uttam Nagar, Madhu Vihar, Near Dwarka, Delhi. He was not living in a rented house as the house belongs to his uncle. His son was now school going being over the age of five years. He was being survived and rearing up his family on the basis of the help of his brother, who is running a shop of mobile phones. He was also helping his brother at the D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.9 out of 23 shop and looking after the same and his expenses were also derived from the sale proceeds of the shop. He denied that he had filed a wrong claim or abandoned the employment on my own volition.
8. Thereafter, WE was closed and matter was fixed for statement and cross examination of MW. In support of his claim, management examined Sh. Ankur Mahalwala as MW1. He relied upon documents Mark A to C on record.
In his cross examination he deposed that no board resolution in his favour as also minutes of meeting have been placed on record for tendering the evidence before this Court. He denied that the workman was in the employment at the management of M/s BSES on permanent basis. He deposed that he had no knowledge as to the workman was in employment with BSES before taking up employment with the management no. 3. The employment of the workman was made through a reference. He did not remember the reference at present. The management no. 3 had issued appointment letter Ex. WW1/26 to the workman at the time of his appointment with the management no.3. He denied that the appointment of the workman was for permanent basis. He voluntarily added that appointment of the workman was initially for three months only. The claimant worked with the management no.3 for a period w.e.f. 14.03.2008 till 30.09.2009. He denied that the management no. 3 in collusion with the management of M/s BSES illegally terminated the services of the workman. He denied that D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.10 out of 23 the management no. 3 terminated the services of the workman without any notice and reason. The management no. 3 sent the letter to the workman to present himself before the management no. 3 asking him to join duty with the management no. 3. He admitted that no copy of the same has been placed on record. He voluntarily deposed that he can produce the same. He denied that no such letter was sent to the workman asking him to resume duty with the management no. 3. He voluntarily deposed that workman never presented himself for resuming his duty in the office of the management no. 3. He denied that no such notice was ever sent to the workman by the management no. 3 that is why there is no question of workman resuming his duties with the management no.
3. No show cause notice or charge sheet was ever issued to the workman by the management no. 3 in this regard. He admitted that no domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman by the management no. 3. He can only tell when the name of the workman was struck off from the records of the management no. 3 after checking the records only. He conceded that no notice pay or service compensation was given to the workman at the time of dispensation of his services. He did not remember whether reply of demand notice was sent by the management no.3 or not. He voluntarily deposed that he can tell the same only after seeing the records. He stated that the management no.3 has not received the demand notice from the workman. He denied that the management no.3 illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the workman. There are no standing orders applicable to the D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.11 out of 23 management no. 3.
He brought the muster roll Ex. MW1/4, however, the post confirmation letter of email could not be traced because of shifting of the office from Jhandewalan to Dwarka. The email dt. 29.09.2009 Ex. MW1/5 was received from one of their clients M/s BSES Rajdhani where the claimant/workman was on duty. Mr. Nayak one of the officials from M/s BSES Rajdhani has sent the email. He voluntarily deposed that on the request of their principal employer the workman was to be removed from their work site but that does not mean he was to be removed from the services of the management no.3 M/s Safeguards. They had called the worker to their office with an intent to relocate him to another work place. He admitted that no letter was sent to the workman with regard to his volunteered portion. He did not refuse duty to the claimant/ workman. He only told the claimant to come to the office of the management no. 3 for further directions of work. He denied that he was deposing falsely that the claimant was not refused duty and not advised to come to the office of the management no.3 for further directions regarding work. He denied that the email is not produced on record as no such letter was sent to the claimant/workman. The claimant/workman used to report to M/s BSES Rajdhani at their work site. The work of the claimant was decided by M/s BSES Rajdhani only where the workman used to report for duty. They had not deleted the name of the claimant/ workman from the muster roll of the management no.3. He voluntarily deposed that the claimant is absenting since D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.12 out of 23 30.09.2009. After 3-4 months of continuous absenteeism without any document from the worker, they removed the name of the temporary worker from their rolls as the claimant was a temporary employee of M/s Safeguards as per their appointment letter. He denied that the management no. 3 terminated the services of the claimant workman at the asking/behest of the management no.1.
Management further examined Sh. Joy Sasmal as MW2. He brought Accounts Statement of the workman no. DLCPM00137470000004976 pertaining to G.S. Yadav for the period April 2008 to September 2009 Ex.MW-2/1(Colly) but not brought the EPF withdrawal form of the workman as no record had been found. He deposed that it appeared that the workman had not applied for the withdrawal of his PF deposit as on the date 08.05.2017 works out to be Rs.8,445/- (EE) and Rs.2,576 (ER).
Management further examined MW3 Sh. Vishesh Sood who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW3/A. In his cross examination he deposed that no board resolution had been passed whereby he had been authorized to depose in the present matter. He was deposing in his official capacity being the GM of the company. He was deposing on the basis of record. However, no such record is there in the court file. He was deposing on the basis of the record available in the system of the company. The contractors are given service contract as per the law. He stated that he could try to locate the necessary permissions etc but today being Saturday he was not in a position to bring the same.
They had contract only with the contractor and whatever D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.13 out of 23 training is required to be given to the manpower employed by the contractor, the same is intimated to the contractor who undertakes the required task. He denied that he was deposing falsely regarding the training etc. He could not say anything pertaining to appointment of Mr. G.S. Yadav. He voluntarily deposed that the workman was employed by the contractor and not by BSES.
They give directions to the contractor for all kind of work be it field job or any other. He admitted that the staff of BSES RPL was present in its office at Vikaspuri. He denied that that BSES was giving direct instructions to the manpower engaged through contractor or that the said manpower was reporting directly to the staff of BSES. He did not know whether the email Ex.WW-1/27 had been issued by the management or not. He joined BSES somewhere in October 2012. The distribution of salary to the workmen is the responsibility of employer. BSES had no role to play when it comes to distribution of salary by the contractor to its manpower. The attendance of the manpower employed by contractor is marked by the supervisor of the contractor. He denied that attendance of the workmen was marked by both the contractor as well as BSES. He denied that the services of the workman was terminated on 30.09.09 on directions of BSES. After seeing the address Ex.WW-1/1, witness deposed that he did not remember the complete address of BSES Office at Vikaspuri and hence cannot confirm whether the address shown was correct or not. He could not say whether Ex.WW-1/1 was received in the office of BSES or not. He admitted that task of meter reading is still carried D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.14 out of 23 out on behalf of BSES by the agency. He denied that BSES has ever indulged in unfair labour practice by engaging contractor for the work of regular nature.
Management further examined Sh. K. S. Rawat (witness on behalf of management no.2) as MW4. He deposed that the record could not be traced as Insurance Number given in the application summoning the witness is incorrect. The code number mentioned in the application as 53-1943-101/DL-278-MTS is also incorrect as the same code number is of the firm ADDICO and not of MTS.
Management further examined Sh. Dinesh Sharma as MW5. He relied upon documents mark MW5/1. He admitted that the workman had been working with the management of M/s ADECCO Flexione Workforce Solution Ltd., later on name of which was changed to M/s ADECCO India Pvt. Ltd. He deposed that the workman worked with the management w.e.f. 18.05.2005 till 31.01.2008. He admitted that even after 31.01.2008, the management was having the contract with the management no.1. He denied that services of workman was terminated by the management no.2 M/s ADECCO India Pvt. Ltd. On 31.01.2008. He voluntarily deposed that the workman left the job of his own. He admitted that the workman did not submit any resignation. He admitted that he had no document in writing on record to show that workman left the services of the management no.2 of his own. The management no.2 has already settled the full and final account of the workman and had made the payment to the workman D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.15 out of 23 accordingly. He denied that full and final account of the workman was settled. In the full and final settlement the workman was paid his wages, bonus and all other dues. He could not explain all other dues but the same was paid in accordance with the law.
Thereafter, M.E. was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have perused the entire record. I have heard the submission of the AR of the workman and the management. My issue wise findings are as under:-
10. -:ISSUE No.1:-
Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the claimant/workman and the management no. 1? OPW The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the Workman.
As per the claim of the workman, M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (management no.1) had held an interview and directed the workman to work at M/s Flexivan Workforce Solutions Pvt. Ltd (management no.2) where he worked w.e.f. 18.05.2005 to 12.02.2008. It was further claimed that the workman was re-
appointed by the management no.1 through M/s Safeguard Manpower Consultants (management no.3). It was also claimed that despite the fact that the management no.1 had permanent work for the labours, they were taking their job through the D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.16 out of 23 contractors.
Per contra, according to the Management No.1, there was no privity of contract between the workman and the management no.1. The workman was infact appointed by managements no.2 and 3. The management no.1 had never issued salary slip or appointment letter to the workman. The management no.2 and, 3 as the case may be, has been the controlling authority of the workman and have been the employer of the workman. The management no.1 has never employed the workman and the workman has no contract of employment with management no.1 in any manner/capacity whatsoever. The workman was not doing any kind of job on the instruction of management no.1.
To discharged the onus, the workman appeared in the witness box as WW-1 and reiterated in his examination-in-chief tendered by way of affidavit that M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (management no.1) had held an interview and directed the workman to work at M/s Flexivan Workforce Solutions Pvt. Ltd (management no.2) where he worked w.e.f. 18.05.2005 to 12.02.2008. It was further claimed that the workman was re- appointed by the management no.1 through M/s Safeguard Manpower Consultants (management no.3). It was also claimed that despite the fact that the management no.1 had permanent work for the labours but they were taking their job through the contractors. The management no.1 was continuously taking the work from the workman since 18.05.2005 through the Contractors D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.17 out of 23 and in that way, the Management no.1 was adopting unfair labour practice.
However, the workman has produced no documentary material in support of his claim that he was actually interviewed and taken into employment by Management no.1 through Management No.2 & 3 respectively. Rather, he admitted that vide Ex.WW1/19 i.e his salary slip for the month of June 2006, was issued by Management no.2. He conceded that he is unable to produce any other document in support of his Claim of being in the employment of management no.1 apart of the documents already filed on record by him.
During the course of cross examination, he claimed that he worked with management no.2 till 12.02.2008 and had pending dues with management no.2. He conceded that he was having a contractual employment with the management no.2.
Further during the cross examination by Management no.3, he conceded that he has no document in support of his claim that he was initially recruited in BSES after an interview. He conceded that he has no document to show that he was called for interview by BSES, rather, he admitted that he had joined M/s Safe Guards w.e.f. 14.03.2008 i.e. the Management No.3 and admitted that he had submitted application and interviewed as mentioned in his appointment letter Ex.WW1/26. He further conceded that after serving management no.2 upto 12.02.2008, a time gap of one month was given by management no.1 and that is why he had joined management no.3 i.e. M/s Safe Guards from 14.03.2008 but D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.18 out of 23 he has no document in support of his said claim.
In view of the above, it is evident that the workman has been failed to discharge the onus to show that there exists any relationship of employer and employee between the claimant/ workman and the management no.1. Issue is liable to be decided against the workman and same stands decided accordingly.
11. ISSUE NO.II Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the managements? OPW Onus to prove this issue has also been placed upon the workman.
As per the workman, the managements were not providing the appointment letter, wages slip, Attendance card, Identity card, ESI, PF, Casual leave and earned leave, transfer letter, bonus etc to the workman as per Labour Act and further neither management no.1 nor management no.2 and 3 had any license to take the labour work from the workman through the contractors. When the workman demanded the above facilities, the management no.1 directed to management no.3 not to take any work from the workman w.e.f. 30.09.2009, and accordingly, they did not allow him to work and thereafter, despite of assurance given by the managements, they did not reinstate the workman on work. The workman had sent a demand notice dt. 17.03.2010 to the managements through the union but they neither replied the D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.19 out of 23 same nor gave any opportunity to explain nor conducted any inquiry against him. The workman is unemployed since the date of termination i.e. 30.09.2009.
While deciding issue no.1, it has already been held that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant/workman and the management no.1 and further admittedly, the workman has lastly worked with the management no.3 till 30.09.2009 when the Management no.3 had discontinued his services at the instance of management no.1.
Although, it has been claimed by the workman that he remained under the employment of management no.2 from the period 18.05.2005 till 12.02.2008 and he had pending dues with management no.2 but he has not disclosed anything about the said dues. Admittedly, he worked with management no.2 till 12.02.2008 and his service was terminated by the Management no.3 on 30.09.2009 and in these circumstances, no liability of management no.2 is made out in favour of workman.
This is not in dispute that the services of workman was discontinued by management no.3 on 30.09.2009. Although, the workman has claimed that his discontinuation of service was taken place at the instance Management no.1 but he has been failed to bring any material in support of his said claim.
It is not in dispute that the workman had worked with the Management no.3 for the period from 14.03.2008 to 30.09.2009 and thereafter, he services was discontinued. As per the claim of workman his service was terminated illegally and unjustifiably, D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.20 out of 23 whereas, accordingly to management no.3 the claimant/workman had himself opted for other employment and as such there was no occasion where the management might have contravened the provisions of I.D. Act.
As per Management no.3, on the request of principal employer the workman was to be removed from their work-side but that does not mean that he was to be removed from the services of Management no.3 M/s Safe Guards and they have called the workman to their office with an intent to relocate him to another work place but there is an admission on the part of witness appeared on behalf of Management no.3 that no letter was sent to the workman in that regard.
It is evident from the above deposition that there is an admission on the part of management no.3 that the workman was under the employment of management no.3 and if it was not so, then why the management no.3 had called the workman for his relocation to another work place. All these shows that the workman was the worker of management no.3, who used to deploy him on different work places.
Although it has been claimed on behalf of Management no.3 that the workman was issued a letter by management no.3 asking him to join duty with management no.3 but admittedly, no copy of same has been placed on record. Further as regards to the claim that the workman never presented himself for resuming his duty in the office of management no.3, there is no material on record to that effect also. Admittedly, no show cause notice or D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.21 out of 23 charge sheet was ever issued by management no.3 in respect of the workman not appearing for his duty. It is also not disputed that no enquiry was conducted against the workman. The arbitrariness is an antithesis to the rule of law, equity and fare play and the principle of natural justice is to be followed. Since no notice, notice pay, compensation or any other consequential benefits were given to the workman prior to termination of his services, the termination of the services of the workman by the management no.3 on 30.09.2009 is illegal and unjustified. Hence issue is liable to be decided against the management no.3 and same stands decided accordingly.
12. -:RELIEF:-
In his statement of claim the workman has prayed for a directions to the management to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity of his services with all the benefits in favour of workman and against the management but in the considered opinion of the court this is not a fit case for the reinstatement, as a considerable period of time has been elapsed and the end of justice will be served if a lumpsum compensation is awarded to the workman instead of reinstatement, backwages, and other consequential benefits. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and terms of reference, and keeping in view the tenure of service of the workman with the management and his last drawn salary a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is awarded to the workman instead of reinstatement D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.22 out of 23 and backwages and other consequential benefits. The management is directed to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the workman within three months from the date of publication of award. If the management failed to pay the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the workman within the stipulated period, the workman is at liberty to get recover the said compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) from the management along with an interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of passing of award till the date of recovery of the amount of compensation. The award is passed accordingly. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for necessary compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open
Court on 21.07.2018 (RAKESH KUMAR-I)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-X
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2018.07.23
15:31:00 +0530
D.I.D. No 2458/16 Page No.23 out of 23