Delhi District Court
Whether There Is No Relationship Of ... vs R.K.Baweja on 25 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
ID No. 268/10 (New) 282/98(Old)
Date of Institution :27.08.1998
Date of Arguments :18.09.2010
(Written Arguments)
Date of Award :25.11.2010
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
M/s Fashion Team
A-37/2, Mayapuri, Phase-I,
New Delhi-110064.
The Management
AND
ITS 127 WORKMEN
All C/o Purvanchal Mazdoor Trade Union
B-236 (Lal Building,
Opp. Indira Kalyan Vihar,
Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi.
The Workmen
AWARD
The Secretary Labour, Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi vide order No. F.24(2871)/98-Lab./28709-13
dated 14.08.1998 referred an Industrial Dispute between the
parties to the Labour Court with the following terms of
reference:
"Whether the services of workmen whose names
appearing in Annexure 'A' 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?"
ID 268/10 Page 1 of 33
A N N E X U R E - 'A'
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Name of the
Sl.No.
S/Sh. workmen S/Sh.
1 Shamim
2 Ramu 65 Bablu Kumar
3 K.K. Nithant 66 Gaur Rai
4 Kamlesh Sharma 67 Ranjeet Singh
5 Priyanka Rani 68 Sanjay Khan
6 Sudhershan Chouhan 69 Sunita Devi
7 Raja 70 Sunayana
8 Abdul Rahim 71 Sarita Devi
9 Radhey Shyam 72 Sulochana
10 Mumtaz 73 Indu Devi
11 Reena 74 Tara-2
12 Rab Hussain 75 Veena
13 Anwar Ahmad 76 Mohd. Salim Ansari
14 Niranjan 77 Akhil Ahmed
15 Shanker 78 Madan Singh
16 Kapil 79 Deepak Kumar
17 Puja 80 Umesh Chander
18 Mahabal 81 Chhotey Lal Gupta
19 Babu Ram 82 Ram Ratan
20 Mukesh Kumar Shani 83 Devki Nandan
21 Jumadin 84 Mustafa Ansari
22 Meena Giri 85 Munna Lal
23 Kamaludin 86 Wahied Ali
24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta 87 Mohd. Jahangir
25 Safiq Alam 88 Satpal
26 Wazir 89 Sudhir Kumar Mishra
27 Shiv Nath Prasad 90 Suresh
28 Kamla Devi 91 Baban Singh
ID 268/10 Page 2 of 33
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Name of the
Sl.No.
S/Sh. workmen S/Sh.
29 Ram Julan Gupta 92 Ram Parshad
30 Subhash Chauhan 93 Dilip Kumar
31 Iqbal Ali 94 Munna Ali
32 Jairam Shah 95 Amar Bahadur
33 Swami Nath 96 Dev Singh
34 Raj Dev 97 Manoj Kumar Rana
35 Chhotey Lal 98 Ismail
36 Shiv Bilas 99 Mohan Babu
37 Kedar Nath 100 Mohd. Jaffar
38 Ram Parkash 101 Rakesh Rai
39 Yashwant 102 Shiv Shanker Singh
40 Ram Bilash 103 Manoj Kumar Pandey
41 Bimla Singh 104 Ram Patel
42 Makhan Lal 105 Kamlesh
43 Parmeshwar 106 Bhagwan Das
44 Arun Kumar 107 Rakesh Kumar-II
45 Ram Parshad 108 Mukesh Chauhan
46 Jahid Ansari 109 Gopal
47 Ram Devi 110 Indrashan
48 Rajender 111 Abdul Zabbar
49 Ravinder 112 Mohan Lal Sharma
50 Surender Kumar 113 Mohd. Rafiq
51 Netra Pal Singh 114 Ishtafa
52 Kamlesh 115 Jagdish Kumar Verma
53 Virender Chauhan 116 Om Parkash Verma
54 Sanjay Kumar 117 Santosh Kr. Verma
55 Ram Kishan Bharti 118 Kusum
56 J. Bannerjee 119 Meera
57 Tej Pal 120 Satya Singh
58 Satyanarain Dubey 121 Ajay Kumar
ID 268/10 Page 3 of 33
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Name of the
Sl.No.
S/Sh. workmen S/Sh.
59 Meena Giri 122 Mohd. Ayub
60 Bimla Devi 123 Sudhir Kumar
61 Ramwati 124 Lal Ji
62 Savitri Devi 125 Vijay Shanker
63 Sangeeta 126 Sunil Kumar
64 Hari Chand 127 Subhash Rai
2. The facts in brief of the 127 workmen case, are that
the workmen as mentioned in Annexure 'A' had been working
with the management on the post as mentioned in column 3,
and they were getting the salary as mentioned in column 4,
since the date/period as mentioned in column 5 of Table A.
Although about 1,500/- employees were working with the
management yet the management used not to maintain proper
service record of its employees. The management retrenched
services of 250 employees on 04.03.1997 but due to
intervention of Assistant Labour Commissioner, 116 employees
out of 250 were allowed to resume their duties. On 03.07.1997,
the management dragged out all the employees from its
factory and closed the factory from 04.07.1997 to 17.07.1997.
Thereafter, the management refused to assign duties to 460
employees on the ground that they were employees of
contractor Y. Singh & Company and Sonu Finishing and their
contract had expired. It has been alleged that the workmen
mentioned in Annexure A are 126 employees out of 460
employees who were denied duties by the management. Since
their services were terminated without taking permission from
ID 268/10 Page 4 of 33
the appropriate government and without paying the
retrenchment compensation, therefore, termination of their
services was illegal and unjustified as per provisions of Section
25 F and Section 25N of the Industrial Dispute Act, here-in-after
referred to as the Act. It has been pleaded on behalf of these
workmen in their common statement of claim which was filed
by their union on their behalf that the above mentioned
workmen were directly working under the management as per
instructions of officers of the management and they were doing
fabrication work and were preparing various garments. They
were the employees of the management and not the
employees of above mentioned contractors. Neither of the
contractor was having any license as provided under Contract
Labour (Regulation & Abolition Act), 1970. The management
was also not having any certificate of registration under the
above referred Act. Therefore, neither the contractor could
gave the services nor the management was entitled to take
services of employees through contractor. The workmen had
been without employment since the date of termination of their
services. Workman prayed for passing an award in their favour
and against the management for reinstatement of their services
with full backwages and continuity in services.
TABLE -'A'
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Post Salary Date of Joining
S/Sh. (Rs.)
1 Shamim Tailor 1680 05.12.1995
2 Ramu Tailor 1600 January 1995
ID 268/10 Page 5 of 33
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Post Salary Date of Joining
S/Sh. (Rs.)
3 K.K. Nithant Tailor 1600 December 1995
4 Kamlesh Sharma Tailor 1784 December 1996
5 Priyanka Rani Cutter 1300 12.12.1996
6 Sudhershan Chouhan Tailor 1640 1995
7 Raja Tailor 1600 1994
8 Abdul Rahim Tailor 1600 December 1994
9 Radhey Shyam Checker 2100 10.04.1994
10 Mumtaz Tailor 1640 22.05.1996
11 Reena Supervisor 1300 22.05.1996
12 Rab Hussain Tailor 1600 January 1996
13 Anwar Ahmad Supervisor 1640 1995
14 Niranjan Helper 1300 February 1996
15 Shanker Tailor 1680 18.12.1995
16 Kapil Tailor 1640 1995
17 Puja Tailor 1680 January 1995
18 Mahabal Tailor 1680 November 1996
19 Babu Ram Tailor 1690 1995
20 Mukesh Kumar Shani Tailor 1680 1995
21 Jumadin Tailor 1660 1995
22 Meena Giri Dhaga Cutter 1300 12.03.1995
23 Kamaludin Tailor 1600 1995
24 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Tailor 1680 1995
25 Safiq Alam Tailor 1800 1995
26 Wazir Tailor 1600 February 1995
27 Shiv Nath Parshad Tailor 1600 08.05.1994
ID 268/10 Page 6 of 33
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Post Salary Date of Joining
S/Sh. (Rs.)
28 Kamla Devi Tailor 1600 1995
29 Ram Julan Gupta Tailor 1600 1995
30 Subhash Chauhan Tailor 1685 25.11.1995
31 Iqbal Ali Tailor 1700 January 1996
32 Jasram Saha Tailor 2075 January 1996
33 Swami Nath Tailor 1690 1995
34 Raj Dev Dhaga Cutter 1300 1996
35 Chhotey Lal Supervisor 1680 1995
36 Shiv Bilas Supervisor 1625 1995
37 Kedar Nath Tailor 1700 1995
38 Ram Parkash Tailor 1700 January 1996
39 Yashwant Tailor 1500 1995
40 Ram Bilash Tailor 1600 1995
41 Bimla Singh Dhaga Cutter 1300 February 1995
42 Makhan Lal Tailor 1625 March 1995
43 Parmeshwar Supervisor 1695 1995
44 Arun Kumar 2100 02.10.1994
45 Ram Parshad Tailor 1700 1995
46 Jahid Ansari Tailor 2100 10.05.1995
47 Ram Devi Dhaga Cutter 300 March 1995
48 Rajender Tailor 1700 20.11.1995
49 Ravinder Helper 1640 1995
50 Surender Kumar Tailor 1700 1995
51 Netra Pal Singh Tailor 1680 1995
52 Kamlesh Tailor 1700 1996
ID 268/10 Page 7 of 33
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Post Salary Date of Joining
S/Sh. (Rs.)
53 Virender Chauhan Tailor 1600 1995
54 Sanjay Kumar Tailor 1700 March 1995
55 Ram Kishan Bharti Supervisor 1690 01.05.1995
56 J. Bannerjee Tailor 1640 February 1994
57 Tej Pal Tailor 1680 June 1996
58 Satyanarain Dubey 1450 February 1994
59 Meena Giri Dhaga Cutter 1300 June 1996
60 Bimla Devi Dhaga Cutter 1300 February 1995
61 Ramwati Dhaga Cutter 1300 February 1995
62 Savitri Devi Tailor 1700 November 1996
63 Sangeeta Dhaga Cutter 1300 March 1996
64 Hari Chand Tailor 1700 18.11.1996
65 Bablu Kumar Supervisor 1600 1995
66 Gaur Rai Tailor 1600 01.04.1995
67 Ranjeet Singh Tailor 1690 01.04.1995
68 Sanjay Khan Tailor 1600 January 1995
69 Sunita Devi Dhaga Cutter 1300 February 1996
70 Sunayana Dhaga Cutter 1300 March 1996
71 Sarita Devi Dhaga Cutter 1300 June 1995
72 Sulochana Dhaga Cutter 1300 June 1995
73 Indu Devi Dhaga Cutter 1300 April 1996
74 Tara2 Dhaga Cutter 1300 May 1995
75 Veena Dhaga Cutter 1300 March 1995
76 Mohd. Salim Ansari Tailor 1590 1995
77 Akhil Ahmed Tailor 2075 June 1995
ID 268/10 Page 8 of 33
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Post Salary Date of Joining
S/Sh. (Rs.)
78 Madan Singh Tailor 1600 May 1995
79 Deepak Kumar Tailor 1690 March 1995
80 Umesh Chander Tailor 1700 18.07.1995
81 Chhotey Lal Gupta Tailor 1800 11.11.1995
82 Ram Ratan Tailor 1806 March 1995
83 Devki Nandan Sample Man 2100 1993
84 Mustafa Ansari Tailor 1700 January 1995
85 Munna Lal Tailor 1640 1995
86 Wahied Ali Tailor 1660 June 1995
87 Mohd. Jahangir Tailor 1680 1995
88 Satpal Helper 1640 1995
89 Sudhir Kumar Mishra Tailor 1800 1996
90 Suresh Tailor 1700 February 1996
91 Bachan Singh Tailor 2100 01.06.1994
92 Ram Parshad Tailor 1600 1995
93 Dalip Kumar Tailor 1640 1995
94 Munna Lal
95 Amar Bahadur Tailor 1700 1995
96 Dev Singh Sample Tailor 1500 13.11.1996
97 Manoj Kumar Rana Sample Tailor 1600 02.06.1996
98 Ismail Sample Tailor 1700 11.11.1995
99 Mohan Babu Sample Tailor 1700 January 1994
100 Mohd. Jakkar Pro. Tailor 1690 1995
101 Rakesh Rai Supervisor 1680 1995
102 Shiv Shanker Singh Helper 1690 1995
ID 268/10 Page 9 of 33
Sl.No. Name of the workmen Post Salary Date of Joining
S/Sh. (Rs.)
103 Manoj Kumar Pandey Checker 1800 06.03.1995
104 Ram Patel Tailor 1640 1995
105 Kamlesh Tailor 1800 1996
106 Bhagwan Das Helper 1680 1995
107 Rakesh KumarII Tailor 1600 1995
108 Mukesh Chauhan Tailor 1650 1995
109 Gopal Tailor 1800 March 1996
110 Indrashan Tailor 1650 1995
111 Abdul Zabbar Tailor 1900 18.07.1995
112 Mohan Lal Sharma Helper 1300 17.09.1996
113 Mohd. Rafiq Tailor 1800 March 1996
114 Mustafa Pro. Tailor 1660 1996
115 Jagdish Kumar Verma Supervisor 1695 1995
116 Om Parkash Verma Helper 1690 1995
117 Santosh Kr. Verma Supervisor 1680 1995
118 Kusham Dhaga Cutter 1300 May 1995
119 Meera Dhaga Cutter 1300 May1995
120 Satya Singh Tailor 1700 December1995
121 Ajay Kumar Supervisor 1680 1995
122 Mohd. Ayub Helper 1680 1995
123 Sudhir Kumar Supervisor 1750 1995
124 Lal Ji Tailor 1660 1995
125 Vijay Shanker Tailor 1680 1995
126 Sunil Kumar Helper 1300 May 1996
127 Subhash Rai Supervisor 1800 1995
ID 268/10 Page 10 of 33
3. The management contested their case on the
ground inter-alia that there was no relationship of employer and
employees between the parties and in absence thereof there
cannot be any termination of their services by the
management. The workmen had been working for the different
managements/concerns and the management did not have any
type of control over the workmen. They were working
particularly with M/s Y. Singh & Co. and M/s Sonu Finishing.
There was no valid espousal of their dispute as per provisions of
law. The management denied all the material allegations.
However, it was further pleaded that some of the employees of
the respondent went on illegal strike during the period
04.07.1997 to 16.07.1997 and the management had to file a
case before the Hon'ble High Court against illegal strike and
violence at the factory gate of the management. The
management apprised the workmen before the conciliation
officer that they were not the employees of the management.
It was further pleaded by the management that provisions of
contract labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are not
attracted on the facts of present case. Besides, the factory of
the management had already been closed w.e.f. 01.04.2001
due to administrative exigencies and financial constraints. The
management denied remaining material allegations made in
the statement of claim and prayed for dismissal of statement of
claim.
4. The workmen in their rejoinder controverted the
allegation raised in the WS and reiterated the averment made
ID 268/10 Page 11 of 33
in the statement of claim.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed:
1. Whether there is no relationship of employer
and employee between the parties?
2. Whether the claimants are not the workmen as
defined U/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act?
3. As per terms of reference.
4. Whether management has closed down its
factory w.e.f. 01.04.2001? If so, its effect. OPM
6. In support of their case the workmen examined 82
witnesses as mentioned here in below:
TABLE - B
Sl Name of Witnesses Sl. Number of Affidavit
No. Examined No. Witnesses Proved as
of
Ann.
A
1 Sh. Kulbir Singh WW1 Ex.WW1/A
2 Sh. Rajendra 48 WW2 Ex.WW2/A
3 Sh. Shamim 1 WW3 Ex.WW3/A
4 Sh. Munna Lal 85 WW4 Ex.WW4/A
5 Sh. Netrapal Singh 51 WW5 Ex.WW5/A
6 Sh. Jagdish Kumar Verma 115 WW6 Ex.WW6/A
7 Sh. Mohan Babu 99 WW7 Ex.WW7/A
8 Smt. Kamla Devi 28 WW8 Ex.WW8/A
9 Sh. Jai Bannerjee 56 WW9 Ex.WW9/A
10 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta 24 WW10 Ex.WW10/A
11 Sh. Ram Jalan Gupta 29 WW11 Ex.WW11/A
12 Sh. Om Prakash Verma 116 WW12 Ex.WW12/A
ID 268/10 Page 12 of 33
Sl Name of Witnesses Sl. Number of Affidavit
No. Examined No. Witnesses Proved as
of
Ann.
A
13 Sh. Rajesh KumarII 107 WW13 Ex.WW13/A
14 Sh. Sudhir Kr. Mishra 89 WW14 Ex.WW14/A
15 Sh. Mukesh Sahni 20 WW15 Ex.WW15/A
16 Sh. Shiv Nath Prasad 27 WW16 Ex.WW16/A
17 Sh. Mohd. Ishmail 98 WW17 Ex.WW17/A
18 Sh. Ishtafa 114 WW18 Ex.WW18/A
19 Sh. Shiv Shanker Singh 102 WW19 Ex.WW19/A
20 Sh. Deepak Kumar 79 WW20 Ex.WW20/A
21 Sh. Ram Kishan Bharti 55 WW21 Ex.WW21/A
22 Sm. Bimla Singh 41 WW22 Ex.WW22/A
23 Smt. Beena 75 WW23 Ex.WW23/A
24 Smt. Vimla Devi 60 WW24 Ex.WW24/A
25 Sh. Subhash Roy 127 WW25 Ex.WW25/A
26 Sh. Tejpal 57 WW26 Ex.WW26/A
27 Sh. Chhote Lal Gupta 81 WW27 Ex.WW27/A
28 Sh. Bawan Singh 91 WW28 Ex.WW28/A
29 Sh. Satya Singh 120 WW29 Ex.WW29/A
30 Sh. Santosh Kr. Verma 117 WW30 Ex.WW30/A
31 Sh. Bhagwan Das 106 WW31 Ex.WW31/A
32 Sh. Abdul Jabbar 111 WW32 Ex.WW32/A
33 Sh. Indrashan 110 WW33 Ex.WW33/A
34 Sh. Anwar Ahmad 13 WW34 Ex.WW34/A
35 Sh. Kamaluddin 23 WW35 Ex.WW35/A
36 Smt. Sangeeta 63 WW36 Ex.WW36/A
37 Sh. Sunaina 70 WW37 Ex.WW37/A
ID 268/10 Page 13 of 33
Sl Name of Witnesses Sl. Number of Affidavit
No. Examined No. Witnesses Proved as
of
Ann.
A
38 Sh. Sulochna 72 WW38 Ex.WW38/A
39 Smt. Sunita Devi 69 WW39 Ex.WW39/A
40 Smt. Indu Devi 73 WW40 Ex.WW40/A
41 Smt. Sarita Devi 71 WW41 Ex.WW41/A
42 Smt. Pooja 17 WW42 Ex.WW42/A
43 Sh. Satpal 88 WW43 Ex.WW43/A
44 Sh. Ram Prasad 92 WW44 Ex.WW44/A
45 Sh. Surender Kumar 50 WW45 Ex.WW45/A
46 Sh. Sudarshan Chauhan 6 WW46 Ex.WW46/A
47 Sh. K.K. Nitant 3 WW47 Ex.WW47/A
48 Sh. Arun Kumar 44 WW48 Ex.WW48/A
49 Sh. Amar Bahadur 95 WW49 Ex.WW49/A
50 Sh. Sanjay Kumar 54 WW50 Ex.WW50/A
51 Sh. Dilip Kumar 93 WW51 Ex.WW51/A
52 Sh. Hari Chand 64 WW52 Ex.WW52/A
53 Sh. Ravinder 49 WW53 Ex.WW53/A
54 Sh. Dev Singh 96 WW54 Ex.WW54/A
55 Sh. Rakesh Rai 101 WW55 Ex.WW55/A
56 Sh. Subhash Chauhan 30 WW56 Ex.WW56/A
57 Sh. Wazir 26 WW57 Ex.WW57/A
58 Sh. Kamlesh 52 WW58 Ex.WW58/A
59 Sh. Bablu Kumar 65 WW59 Ex.WW59/A
60 Sh. Abdul Rahim 8 WW60 Ex.WW60/A
61 Mohd. Salim Ansari 76 WW61 Ex.WW61/A
62 Sh.RadheyShyam Mishra 9 WW62 Ex.WW62/A
ID 268/10 Page 14 of 33
Sl Name of Witnesses Sl. Number of Affidavit
No. Examined No. Witnesses Proved as
of
Ann.
A
63 Sh. Kapil 16 WW63 Ex.WW63/A
64 Sh. Ranjeet Singh 67 WW64 Ex.WW64/A
65 Sh. Umesh Chander 80 WW65 Ex.WW65/A
66 Sh. Manoj Kr. Rana 97 WW66 Ex.WW66/A
67 Sh. Mohd. Jafar 100 WW67 Ex.WW67/A
68 Sh. Ram Patel 104 WW68 Ex.WW68/A
69 Smt. Kusum 118 WW69 Ex.WW69/A
70 Smt. Meera 119 WW70 Ex.WW70/A
71 Sh. Sunil Kumar 126 WW71 Ex.WW71/A
72 Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad 10 WW72 Ex.WW72/A
73 Sh. Swaminath 33 WW73 Ex.WW73/A
74 Sh. Rajdev 34 WW74 Ex.WW74/A
75 Sh. Virendra Chauhan 53 WW75 Ex.WW75/A
76 Sh. TaraII 74 WW76 Ex.WW76/A
77 Sh. Lalji 124 WW77 Ex.WW77/A
78 Sh. Jamaluddin 21 WW78 Ex.WW78/A
79 Sh. Mustafa Ansari 84 WW79 Ex.WW79/A
80 Sh. Jahid Ansari 46 WW80 Ex.WW80/A
81 Sh. Indrasan 110 WW81 Ex.WW81/A
82 Sh. Vijay Shanker 125 WW82 Ex.WW82/A
7. WW1 proved documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/53.
8. The other workmen namely S/Sh. Ram Vilas,
ID 268/10 Page 15 of 33
Yashwant, Kedarnath, Kamlesh, Sanjay Khan, Akhil Ahmed,
Madan Singh, Ram Ratan, Devki Nandan, Mohd. Jahangir, Wahid
Ali, Suresh, Manoj Kumar Pandey, Gopal, Vikas, Ram Sahai,
Iqbal Ali, Ramu, Baburam, Shankar, Reena, Kamlesh Shrma,
Prithvi Rani, Ramvati and Savitri Devi did not appear to prove
their affidavits and to face the cross examination.
9. In order to prove its case, the management
examined Shri D. R. Sharma as MW1. He filed his affidavit as
Ex.MW1/A and relied on documents Ex. MW1/1 consisting of 71
pages. Management also examined Shri Sunil Prasad UDC, ESI
Corporation as MW2.
10. After closing of evidence, I have heard lengthy
arguments addressed by Authorised Representatives of the
parties and perused the file including written submissions filed
by Counsel for the parties.
11. On perusal of pleadings of the parties, analysing
evidence and material placed on record and considering the
arguments written as well as oral, addressed by Authorised
Representatives for the parties, I have formed my opinions on
the issues and that are discussed here in below issue-wise:
12. At the outset, it is made clear that the above
reference was sent for 127 workmen. Out of these workmen,
only 81 workmen whose name appear in Table B at sl.nos. 2 to
82 could examine them as per detail mentioned in paragraph
no.6. Thus the 46 workmen whose name do not appear in Table
ID 268/10 Page 16 of 33
B failed to corroborate their statement of claim. It is, therefore,
held that these 46 workmen have failed to prove their
respective cases and they are not entitled to get any relief.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1
13. The burden to prove this issue was on the
management and it had to prove that there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the parties.
14. It has been argued on behalf of the management
that the statement of claim was signed by Secretary of the
Purvanchal Mazdoor Trade Union and its Authorized
Representatives Sh. Awdesh Singh and Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary.
None of the workmen signed the statement of claim. Thus, the
statement of claim has not been filed in accordance with Rule 4
& 10(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957,
hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Therefore, none of the
workmen is entitled to get relief in the present case on the
basis of the statement of claim.
15. It has been further argued on behalf of the
management that in his statement, WW1 Sh. Kulbir Singh has
made it clear that said Uttranchal Mazdoor Trade Union was in
existence at the time of filing of statement of claim and he has
also admitted that Purvanchal Mazdoor trade Union did not
authorize him to file this statement of claim. The workmen who
filed their affidavits have failed to utter even a single word
regarding authorization of Kulbir Singh for filing statement of
ID 268/10 Page 17 of 33
claim. Therefore, Kulbir Singh has also failed to file any letter of
authorization by workmen or by the Union. Therefore, the
statement of claim filed before this court is merely a piece of
paper and it has no sanctity in the eyes of law and therefore, it
is liable for rejection.
16. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said rules
which run as under :-
4. Attestation of application. - The application and the
statement accompanying it shall be signed -
(a) in the case of an employer by the employer
himself, or when the employer is an
incorporated company or other body corporate,
by the agent, manager or other principal officer
of the Corporation;
(b) in the case of workmen, either by the President
and Secretary of a trade union of the workmen,
or by five representatives of the workmen duly
authorized in this behalf at a meeting of the
workmen held for the purpose;
(c) in the case of an individual workman, by the
workman himself or by any officer of the trade
union of which he is a member or by another
workman in the same establishment duly
authorized by him in this behalf:
[10A. Parties to submit statements. - The employer of the
party representing workmen [or in the case of individual
workman, the workman himself] involved in an industrial
dispute shall forward a statement setting forth the specific
matters in dispute to the Conciliation Officer concerned
whenever his intervention in the dispute is required.]
[10B. Proceeding before the Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal. - (1) While referring an industrial dispute
for adjudication to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal, the Central Government shall direct the party raising
the dispute to file a statement of claim complete with relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
ID 268/10 Page 18 of 33
the order of reference and also forward a copy of such
statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in the
dispute.
17. I have perused the statement of claim and found
that though names of 127 workmen have been mentioned in
the statement of claim, but it does not bear the signatures of
any of the workmen. This statement of claim has been signed
by the Secretary of Purvanchal Mazdoor Trade Union and its
Authorized Representatives Sh. Awdesh Singh and Sh. Neeraj
Chaudhary. Thus, it is established on record that the statement
of claim was not filed in accordance with Rules 4 & 10 of the
Rules.
18. It has to be seen as to what is the effect of such
statement of claim which was not filed in accordance with Rules
4 & 10 of the Rules. My attention goes to a case, Indian
Refrigeration Industries and another vs. R.K.Baweja, 1991
(42) FLR 381. It was held by the Delhi High Court that :
"The plea never sought to be raised before me that the
workman alone should have signed the statement of claim was
never raised before the Industrial Tribunal. Had any such plea
been taken at that stage, the defect, if any, could have been
remedied. In any case, this procedural irregularity, if any,
cannot, to my mind, vitiate the reference which had been
validly made to the Industrial Tribunal. I do not find any force in
this contention on behalf of the management."
19. On examination of evidence, I find that WW1 who is
President of the Pragtisheel Mazdoor Trade Union deposed that
previously the name of the Union was Purvanchal Mazdoor
trade Union. He has proved the relevant documents as
Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/53. Ex.WW1/1 is report of Labour
ID 268/10 Page 19 of 33
Inspector appointed under Minimum Wages Act showing that
challan u/s 90(4) of the Minimum Wages Act against the
management was filed. Ex.WW1/2 is copy of bail application of
Sh. Rakesh Rai and three others in respect of FIR No. 222/97.
Ex.WW1/3 is the copy of list of accused of case FIR No.222/97
u/s 147/149/427/323 IPC of PS Okhla Industrial Area. Ex.WW1/4
is a copy of order of Spl. Executive Magistrate dated 11.2.97.
Ex.WW1/5 is copy of claim filed by the management against
Purvanchal Mazdoor Trade Union on 02.04.97 before Sr. Civil
Judge, Delhi. Ex.WW1/6 is the copy of written statement
submitted by Purvanchal Mazdoor Trade Union. Ex.WW1/7 is the
reply to the Injunction application of Purvanchal Mazdoor Trade
Union. Ex.WW1/7 is affidavit of President of Union. Ex.WW1/8 is
the application of said case. Ex.WW1/9 is copy of order sheet of
suit No. 113/97. Ex.WW1/10 is another copy of order dated
09.07.97. Ex.WW1/11 is copy of 8 notices issued by the High
Court of Delhi. Ex.WW1/11 is copy of memo of parties, filed by
the management against the Union before the High Court.
Ex.WW1/12 consisting of 41 pages, is reply of Union consisting
of 15 pages. Ex.WW1/13 is copy of urgent application consisting
of 7 pages filed by the Representative of Union. Ex.WW1/14 is a
reply consisting of 12 pages filed by the management before
the High Court. Ex.WW1/15 are the copies of affidavits
consisting of 14 pages with index filed before the High Court.
Ex.WW1/15 are the report consisting of 8 pages. Ex.WW1/16 is
copy of FIR consisting of 2 pages with enclosures. Ex.WW1/17 is
copy of another contempt application consisting of 10 pages
filed by the management against the Union and its members.
Ex.WW1/16 is copy of High Court Order dated 11.07.1997 with
ID 268/10 Page 20 of 33
enclosures. Ex.WW1/17 is copy of letter dated 13.01.1998,
issued by the management to the Union. Ex. WW1/18 is copy of
letter dated 25.02.1998 issued by Sh. Jai Ram, Advocate.
Ex.WW1/19 is resolution dated 06.05.1998 of the Purvanchal
Mazdoor Trade Union. Ex.WW1/20 is a letter of Legal and HRD
Manager to the union. Ex.WW1/21 is reply of Union to the Sr.
Legal and HRD Manager. Ex.WW1/22 is another letter of Sr.
Legal Manager & HRD dated 26.9.97 to the Union. Ex.WW1/23
to Ex.WW1/26 are the Press clippings. Ex.WW1/27 consisting of
27 pages are copies of various medial legal reports of many
workmen. Ex.WW1/27 is a notice of the Labour Inspector,
Minimum Wages Act to the managment. Ex.WW1/29 consisting
of 16 pages is Labour Inspector's report. Ex.WW1/30 consisting
of 11 pages is another report of Labour Inspector. Ex.WW1/31 is
also report of Labour Inspector dated 23.7.97 addressed to
management. Ex.WW1/33 is letter dated 29.7.97 from the office
of Labour Inspector to the union. Ex.WW1/34 is another
correspondence dated 6.8.97 of Asstt. Labour Inspector to the
union. Ex.WW1/36 is another letter dated 07.08.97 of Asstt.
Labour Inspector to the management. Ex.WW1/37 is the copy of
letter dated 02.09.1997 of Union to the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner. Ex.WW1/38 is copy of the letter dated
15.09.1997 to Labour Commissioner by Secretary. Ex.WW1/39 is
copy of statement of claim filed by Union before Asstt. Labour
Commissioner with enclosures, consisting of 54 pages.
Ex.WW1/40 is a letter dated 11.12.97 of Asstt. Labour
Commissioner to management. Ex.WW1/41 is letter dated
23.12.97 of Union. Ex.WW1/42 is copy of order of reference.
Ex.WW1/43 is statement of claim filed by union before Labour
ID 268/10 Page 21 of 33
Court. Ex.WW1/44 is notice dated 09.04.98 of the Union.
Ex.WW1/45 is copy of notice dated 21.8.98 of Union to its
members. Ex.WW1/46 is copy of letter of Union to Asstt. Labour
Commissioner. Ex.WW1/47 is copy of letter dated 08.03.2000 of
Labour Department. Ex.WW1/48 is copy of corrigendum of
reference order. Ex.WW1/49 is copy of rules and regulations
and constitution of Union consisting of 8 pages. Ex.WW1/50 is
another letter dated 07.02.98. Ex.WW1/51 is a complaint of the
Union. Ex.WW1/52 are the copies of attendance sheets
consisted of 50 pages. Ex.WW1/52 is the copy of minutes of
meeting of Union dated 08.07.97 consisting of 12 pages.
Ex.WW1/53 is copy of record of management consisting of 18
pages. On perusal of all these documents, it has been
established on record that the Union was already in existence
and subsequently its name was changed. As the workmen have
appeared and deposed and their President also appeared and
deposed, therefore, their common statement of claim is
maintainable.
20. My decision find support by principles of provisions
of law laid down by Delhi High Court in Indian Refrigeration
Industries and another vs. R.K.Baweja, (supra). Besides,
81 workmen appeared as witnesses, proved their respective
affidavits duly supported by documents and represented by
Union, corroborated their claim therefore, I am of the view that
their statement of claim has to be considered and it cannot be
rejected outrightly.
ID 268/10 Page 22 of 33
21. As regards the relationship of employer and
employee is concerned, on analysing the evidence of WW2 to
WW82, I find that all of them have stated in their respective
affidavits that they had been working with the management
since 1985. In cross examination, they stick to their statements
and stated that they were the employees of the management.
In cross examination, MW1 stated that balance sheet used to be
prepared while running the company and the wages used to be
reflected in the wage register which were paid to the workmen
as well as other employees. He was unable to produce the
record in respect of attendance and wages of the workmen for
the relevant period. He continued to admit that management
was not having any registration under Contract Labour
(Abolition and Regulation) Act. The management did not have
any contact with any contractor for providing of contract labour.
22. The Authorized Representative for workman relied
on a case Automobile Association of Upper India vs.
POLC-II & Others 2006 LLR 851. It was held by Delhi High
Court that:
"14.Engagement and appointment in service can be
established directly by the existence and production of an
appointment letter, a written agreement or by circumstantial
evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in
the nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave
record, deposit of provident fund contribution and employees
state insurance contributions etc. The same can be produced
and proved by the workman or he can call upon and caused
the same to be produced and proved by alling for witnesses
who are required to produce and prove these records. The
workman can even make appropriate application calling upon
ID 268/10 Page 23 of 33
the management to call such records in respect of his
employment to be produced. In these circumstances, if the
management then fails to produce such records, an adverse
inference is liable to be drawn against the management and in
favour of the workman."
23. He further relied on a case Director, Fisheries
Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda,
2010-I-LLJ-3(SC). It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"Section 25-B of the Act defines "continuous service". In terms
of sub section (2) of Section 25-B that if a workman during a
period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually
worked under the employer 240 days within a period of one
year, he will be deemed to be in continuous service. The
respondent claims he was employed in the year 1985 as a
watchman and his services were retrenched in the year 1991
and during the period between 1985 to 1991, he had worked
for a period of more than 240 days. The burden of proof is on
the respondent to show that he had worked for 240 days in
preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment.
The law on this issue appears to be now well settled. This
Court in the case of R.M.Yellati v. Assistant Executive Engineer
(2006) I SCC 106: 2006-I-LLJ-442, has observed at p.448 of LLJ:
"17. ....However, applying general principles and on reading
the aforesaid judgments, we find that this Court, has
repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the
claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given
year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In
cases of termination fo services of daily-waged earners, there
will be no letter of appointment of termination. There will also
be no receipt of proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the
workman (the claimant) can only call upon the employer to
produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given
period, the letter of appointment for termination, if any, the
wage register, the attendance register, etc. Drawing of
adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the
facts of each case."
24. On analysing the evidence on record, and applying
the principles of law laid down in case Automobile
ID 268/10 Page 24 of 33
Association of Upper India vs. POLC-II & Others (supra)
and Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai
Meghajibhai Chavda (supra), I came to the conclusion that
evidence and material placed on record has proved that there
was relationship of employer and employee between the
parties. The reasons which support my decision are, firstly, that
81 workmen have corroborated their statement of claim and
their President corroborated their case and stated that they had
been employees of the management.
25. Secondly, the management has failed to produce the
relevant record to rebut their evidence and to disprove that
they were not the employees of the management. An adverse
inference U/s 114(g) of Evidence Act is drawn in favour of the
workmen and against the management to the effect that the
record was not produced as that would have established the
relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
26. Thirdly, MW1 himself, admitted that they were not
the employees of any contractor and the management was
neither registered under the Contract Labour (Abolitions and
Regulations) Act nor it availed the services of contractor.
In view of reasons, discussion and evidence on record and
particularly discussed here in above, issue no.1 is decided in
favour of workmen and against the management and it is held
that there was relationship of employer and employee between
the parties.
ID 268/10 Page 25 of 33
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2
27. The burden to prove this issue was on the management
and it had to prove that none of the workmen is covered under
the definition of 'workman' as mentioned u/s 2(s) of the Act. It
would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 2(s) of
the Act which runs as under:
"2.Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant
in the subject or context. -
(a) to (r)***
[(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward, whether the terms of employment be express or
implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act
in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person
who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or
whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any such person -
(i) ***
(ii)***
(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity, or
(iv)who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws
wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties
attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in
him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]"
28. As mentioned above, 73 workmen deposed that they
had been working with the management mostly as Tailors or
Thread Cutter or Sample Tailor or Helper. Therefore, 73
workmen except 8 workmen, as mentioned in paragraph No. 29
below, who examined themselves are covered under the
definition of workmen as nothing in their cross examination
ID 268/10 Page 26 of 33
could come out which oust them from the definition of
'workman'. The management did not adduce any evidence on
this aspect.
29. Sh. Jagdish Kumar Sharma, WW6,, Sh. Subhash
WW25, Sh. Santosh Kumar Verma, WW30, Sh. Indersain WW33,
Sh. Anwar Ahmed WW34, Sh. Rakesh Rai, WW55, and Sh. Bablu
Kumar, WW59 have been shown as Supervisors in the common
statement of claim in Table A above . They have also mentioned
in their respective affidavits that they were working as
Supervisors or Asstt. Supervisors. Their statement of claim or
affidavits are silent to the effect that their designation was
ornamental or they were not performing the duties of
supervisory nature. Their monthly salary have been shown
above Rs.1,600/- in their respective affidavits. Therefore, only
these 8 claimants do not fall in the category of 'Workmen'. As
regards Sh. Ram Kishan Bhartiya, WW21 is concerned, he
comes under the category of 'workman' as he has given his
designation as 'Tailor'. There is no other evidence to show that
he was working as supervisor.
In view of reasons, discussion and evidence on
record and particularly discussed here in above, issue no.2 is
decided in favour of 73 workmen and against the management
and remaining 54 workmen.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 3
30. The burden to prove the terms of reference was on
the workmen and they had to prove that their services have
ID 268/10 Page 27 of 33
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management. All the 81 workmen have established that they
had been working with the management for more than 240
days preceding the date of termination of their services. MW1 in
his cross examination, admitted that management was having
400-500 employees at the relevant time. It is not the case of
the management that the management terminated the services
of workmen after complying the provisions of Section 25F and
25N of the Act. It is not the case of the management that either
management assigned any reason before termination of their
services or issued any notice to any of the workmen or offered
or paid wages or retrenchment compensation before
termination of their services. Thus, the evidence and material
on record have well established that management did not
comply the provisions of Section 25F and 25N of the Act before
terminating the services of the workmen and therefore, the
same is held to be illegal and unjustified.
In view of reasons, discussion and evidence on
record and particularly discussed here in above, issue no.3 is
decided in favour of 81 workmen and against the management.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 4
31. The burden to prove this issue was on the
management and it had to prove that management has closed
down its factory since 01.04.2001. In his affidavit, MW1 on this
aspect stated that manufacturing unit of the respondent has
already been closed due to administration and financial
constrained and over all slow down in the market w.e.f.
ID 268/10 Page 28 of 33
01.04.2001. Nothing in cross examination could come out which
could establish that factory of management is still in operation.
MW2, who is UDC of ESI Corporation also stated that as per
report dated 05.02.2003 of ESI Inspector, the management firm
has been closed.
In view of reasons, discussion and evidence on
record and particularly discussed here in above, issue no.4 is
decided in favour of management and against the workmen.
LUMP SUM COMPENSATION
32. In case of Kishan Swaroop Vs. Project and
Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.,MANU/DE/3010/2007 it
was held by Delhi High Court that in each and every case of
illegal and unjustified termination of services, the relief of
reinstatement and full back wages is not to be granted
automatically and the Labour Court can mould the relief by
granting lump sum compensation in lieu thereof.
33. In case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar
Rai,(2005) 5 SCC 124, it was held that:
"6. A law in absolute terms cannot be laid down as to in which
cases, and under what circumstances, full back wages can be
granted or denied. The Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal
before which industrial dispute has been raised, would be
entitled to grant the relief having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, several
factors are required to be taken into consideration".
34. In case of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v.
Employees (1979) 2 SCC 80 a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court
ID 268/10 Page 29 of 33
laid down:
"11. In the very nature of things there cannot be a straitjacket
formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant
considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be
a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back
wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it
must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At
that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in
view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must
be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for
exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must
appear on the face of the record. When it is said that
something is to be done within the discretion of the authority,
that something is to be done according to the rules of reason
and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be
arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular***"
35. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, and particularly decision of issue No. 4 in favour of
management, it would not be feasible to reinstate the
workmen, in service, therefore, it would be just, fair and proper
to award lump sum compensation in lieu of their reinstatement
in service and back wages as held in Kishan Swaroop Vs.
Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd (supra),
Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai, (supra) and
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees (supra).
ORDER
36. Consequent upon the decision of issues No.1 yo 3 in favour of 73 workmen and against the management, the terms of reference are answered in favour of the 73 workmen and it is held that the management terminated the services of these 73 ID 268/10 Page 30 of 33 workmen whose detailed information is given below, illegally and unjustifiably in as much as their services were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25F and 25N of the Act and principles of natural justice.
37. As these 73 workmen have suffered legal injury due to illegal action of the management and they cannot be put to their original posts as the management has been closed down, therefore, considering all the relevant factors including pay, length of service of the workmen and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be just, fair and appropriate if a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) (each) is awarded in favour of seven (7) workmen, namely, Sh. Abdul Rahim, Sl. No. 8, Sh. Rahdey Shyam Mishra, Sl. No. 9, Sh. Shiv Nath Prasad, Sl. No. 27, Sh. Arun Kumar, Sl. No. 44, Sh. J.Bannerji, Sl. No. 56, Sh. Bachan Singh, Sl. No. 91 and Sh. Mohan Babu, Sl. No. 99 in the Annexure A and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) (each) is awarded in favour of fifty two (52) workmen, namely, Sh. Shamim, Sl. No. 1, Sh. K.K.Nithant, Sl. No. 3, Sh. Sudarshan Chauhan, Sl. No. 6, Sh. Kapil, Sl. No. 16, Smt. Puja, Sl. No. 17, Sh. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Sl. No. 20, Sh. Jamaluddin, Sl. No. 21, Sh. Kamaluddin, Sl. No. 23, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sl. No. 24, Sh. Wazir, Sl. No. 26, Smt. Kamla Devi, Sl. No. 28, Sh. Ram Jalan Gupta, Sl. No. 29, Sh. Subhash Chauhan, Sl. No. 30, Sh. Swami Nath, Sl. No. 33, Sh. Vazir, Sl. No. 36, Smt. Bimla Singh, Sl. No. 41, Sh. Zahid Ansari, Sl. No. 46, Sh. Rajender, Sl. No. 48, Sh. Ravinder, Sl. No. 49, Sh. Surender Kumar , Sl. No. 50, ID 268/10 Page 31 of 33 Sh. Netrapal Singh, Sl. No. 51, Sh. Virender Chauhan, Sl. No. 53, Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sl. No. 54, Smt. Bimla Devi, Sl. No. 60, Sh. Ranjit Singh, Sl. No. 67, Smt. Sarita Devi, Sl. No. 71, Smt. Sulochana, Sl. No. 72, Sh. Tara II, Sl. No. 74, Smt. Beena, Sl. No. 75, Sh. Mohd. Salim Ansari, Sl. No. 76, Sh. Deepak Kumar, Sl. No. 79, Sh. Umesh Chander, Sl. No. 80, Sh. Chhoteylal Gupta, Sl. No. 81, Sh. Mustafa Ansari, Sl. No. 84, Sh. Munna Lal, Sl. No. 85, Sh. Satpal, Sl. No. 88, Sh. Ram Prasad, Sl. No. 92, Sh. Dilip Kumar, Sl. No. 93, Sh. Amar Bahadur, Sl. No. 95, Sh. Mohd. Ismail, Sl. No. 98,Sh. Mohd. Zafar, Sl. No. 100, Sh. Shiv Shankar Singh, Sl. No. 102, Sh,. Ram Patel, Sl. No. 104, Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Sl. No. 106, Sh. Rakesh Kumar II, Sl. No. 107, Sh. Abdul Jabbar, Sl. No. 111, Sh. Omparkash Verma, Sl. No. 116, Smt. Kusum, Sl. No. 118, Smt. Meera, Sl. No. 119, Sh. Satya Singh, Sl. No. 120, Sh. Lalji, Sl. No. 124, and Sh. Vijay Shankar, Sl. No. 125 in Annexure A; Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) (each) is awarded in favour of fourteen (14) workmen, namely, Sh. Mumtaz Ahmed, Sl. No.10, Sh. Raj Dev, Sl. No.34, Sh. Kamlesh, Sl. No. 52, Sh. Tejpal, Sl. No. 57, Smt. Sangeeta, Sl. No. 63, Sh. Hari Singh, 64, Smt. Sunita Devi, Sl. No. 69, Ms. Sunaina, Sl. No. 70 Smt. Indu Devi, Sl. No. 73, Sh. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Sl. No. 89, Sh. Dev Singh Sl. No.96, Sh. Manoj Kumar Rana, Sl. No. 97, Sh. Istafa, Sl. No. 114, and Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sl. No. 126 in Annexure A and against the management.
38. The appropriate Government is advised to direct the management to pay above mentioned amount of compensation to above mentioned workmen within 30 days from the date of publication of this award failing which, the workmen will also be ID 268/10 Page 32 of 33 entitled to get the future interest @ 8% from the date of award till the realization of the said amount.
39. It is further held that eight (8) workmen, namely, Sh. Anwar Ahmed, Sl. No.13, Sh. Ram Kishan Bhartiya, Sl. No. 55, Sh. Bablu Kumar, Sl. No.65, Sh. Rakesh Rai, Sl. No.101, Sh. Indersain, Sl.No.110, Sh. Jagdish Kumar Verma, Sl. No.115, Sh. Santosh Kumar Verma, Sl. No. 117, Sh. Subhash Rai, Sl. No.127 are not entitled to get any relief as they are not covered under the definition of 'workman'.
40. It is further held that remaining forty six (46) workmen are not entitled to get any relief as they have failed to appear and corroborate their statement of claim and prove their case against the management.
Award is, accordingly passed.
40. Copy of award be sent to the Secretary Labour, Govt. of NCT, Delhi for publication as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 25th November, 2010 (DR. T. R. NAVAL) Additional District & Sessions Judge Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
ID 268/10 Page 33 of 33