Delhi District Court
Doodhnath vs M/S. Gujral Sons on 23 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN GOEL,
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - X
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 350/22
Sh. Doodhnath,
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Prasad,
R/o F139/8, Punjabi Basti,
Near Nepali Mandir,
Baljeet Nagar,
New Delhi110008
Through
C/o Sh. Kanta Prasad,
General Secretary,
Krantikari General Mazdoor Union (Regd. 4604),
J1413, Jahangir Puri, Delhi110033
... Workman
Versus
M/s Gujral Sons,
Sh. Grish Gujral (Director),
Ganga Ram Building,
Ajmal Khan Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005 ... Management
Date of institution of the case : 08.02.2022
Date of passing the Award : 23.04.2024
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 1/16
A W A R D:
1. A reference No. F.24(16)/2021/Ref/CD/Lab/88 dated 07.01.2022
was received from Govt. for adjudication and disposal of Industrial
Dispute between the aforesaid workman and the management by
formulating the following terms of reference :
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Doodhnath
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Prasad, Age around 58 years have
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and
what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. After the receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the
workman for filing of statement of claim. The statement of claim
was filed on behalf of the workman on 14.07.2022. In his statement
of claim, the workman has stated that he was working with the
management since 2002 on the post of Guard and his last drawn
salary was Rs.11,500/- per month. During his employment with the
management he always performed his duties sincerely, diligently
and never gave a chance of complaint to the Management
Department, hence, the service record of the workman was neat and
clean. It is further stated in his claim that the Management had not
provided him any legal facilities. On repeated demands, the manager
started procrastinating by giving false assurances. It is further stated
in his claim, that the manager of the management used to not pay the
employees the minimum wage implemented by the Delhi
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 2/16
Government as per the post of the employee.
3. It is further stated in the claim that when the employee appeared
at the institute for work as per his schedule on 24/08/2020, the
managers refused to take him for work and had also not even paid
the due wages to the workman. It is sudden and unexpected
termination from service without giving any notice, charge sheet,
internal inquiry proceedings before removal which is a violation of
Section 25F, 25G, 25H of the Act.
4. It is further stated in the claim that a demand notice was also
sent to the management on 14/09/2020 but despite service no reply
was received from the management.
5. Being aggrieved, workman filed claim statement to the Labor
Office Pusha Gate New Delhi 12, where the manager was present
but did not show any interest in the settlement proceedings, due to
which settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. Hence,
this reference.
6. It is further stated in the claim, that the claimant is unemployed
from the day of his termination. Despite efforts, he could not find
any job. It is further stated in the claim that the claimant had
worked more than 240 days with the management as per the
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 3/16
calendar year and prayed that the Management be directed to
reinstate him to services with full back wages and consequential
benefits.
7. Copy of statement of claim was supplied to the Management to
which written statement was filed on behalf of the Management
along with supporting documents on 24.11.2022.
8. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was taken by
the Management the claim filed by workman was based on wrong,
incorrect, false and frivolous facts, hence, the same is not
maintainable as the services of the workman were never terminated
on 24.08.2020 by the management as alleged by workman. It is
submitted in the written statement that the workman has voluntarily
resigned on 29.02.2016 from the services of management and left at
his own by taking his full and final settled amount. It is further
submitted in the written statement that after 29.02.2016, the
workman never worked with the management, hence, the
termination of services of workman on 24.08.2020 by the
management as alleged by him in the claim does not arise.
9. It is further stated in the written statement that as per settled
law the onus to prove the claim is upon the workman. It is further
submitted that after leaving the services of the management the
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 4/16
workman served on other shops as an employee and also as free
lance. In view of above preliminary objections, the claim of the
workman against the management does not merit any consideration
and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Rejoinder has not been filed on behalf of the workman despite
opportunity. After completion of pleadings, following issues were
settled vide order dated 19.01.2023 :
(i) Whether services of workman Shri Dhoodhnath,
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Prasad, Age around 58 years have
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and
what directions are necessary in this respect? OPW
Relief
11. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for workman evidence. On
10.03.2023, when the matter was listed for workman evidence, AR
for the management submitted that management had taken
preliminary objection that it had paid full and final settlement
amount after the claimant had resigned on 29.02.2016, but no issue
on the said aspect has been framed. It was further submitted that if
the management was able to prove that the claimant had resigned,
then the case of the claimant would fail. Since, the claim of the
management regarding voluntary resignation by the claimant had
been disputed by the claimant, the issue on the said aspect arose
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 5/16
between the parties and accordingly, following additional issue was
framed:
"(ii) Whether on 29.02.2016 claimant had resigned
voluntarily from the services of the management after
taken full and final settlement amount or not? OPM"
12. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for workman evidence.
On 20.10.2023, WW1 had tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A in
evidence and relied upon the following documents: (i) Copy of
demand notice dated 24.09.2020, Ex. WW1/1, (ii) Copy of postal
receipt Ex. WW 1/2, (iii) Copy of EPF form No. 31 Ex. WW1/3, (iv)
4. Copy of EPF form No. 19 Ex. WW 1/4, (v) Copy of letter receipt
on management address Ex. WW1/5, (vi) Copy of money order
receipt Ex. WW1/6, (vii) Copy of vouchers of management Ex.
WW1/7, (viii) Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.WW1/8 (OSR).
13. Thereafter, the workman was cross examined by Sh. Deepak
Kumar Dhingra, AR for the management wherein workman stated
that he was illiterate but he could sign in Hindi language. During
further cross examination, it is stated by the workman that the
present case was filed by the Union on his behalf but he was not
aware whether the union officials had explained the contents of the
same to him or not. He further stated that he was born in the year
1955 and was getting the facility of PF during his employment
period. The Ex. WW1/3 (colly) and Ex. WW1/4 (colly) bears his
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 6/16
signature at point A.
14. During further cross examination, WW1 stated that he was
was paid salary in cash as per his attendance marked by the
management and that he had not made any written complaint against
the management regarding nonprovision of legal facilities. He
denied the suggestion that he was working with the management
from 01.08.2009, however, he voluntarily stated that he was
working since 2002. He admitted that he had not filed any
documents showing that he had worked with the management from
2002 to July 2009 and further admitted that he had not filed any
documents showing that he had worked with the management from
March 2016 to August 2020. He denied the suggestion that he had
worked with the management from 01.08.2009 to 29.02.2016,
however, he stated voluntarily that he had worked with the
management from 2002 to 2020.
15. WW-1 admitted his signature on the three documents Ex.
WWI/MI to Ex. WW1/M3, put by AR for the management to the
witness at points A, B and C. During further cross examination,
WW-1 admitted that he had a bank account bearing no.
1522000100327414 at PNB Branch, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. He
further stated that he was not aware whether cheque no. 003736
dated 10.03.2016 of Rs. 21,000/- had been given by the management
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 7/16
or not. He further stated that he was having only one account at PNB
situated at Rajendra place, New Delhi opened in the year 2016 and
that he had passbook of the said bank account.
16. During further cross examination, WW-1 denied the suggestion
that he had resigned from the services of the management on
29.02.2016, however, he voluntarily stated that he had asked for
some money from the management for purpose of marriage of his
son and the management asked him to sign a blank paper so amount
could be withdrawn from PF account. He did not made any police
complaint against the management for taking his signatures on blank
paper. He denied the suggestion that he had taken full and final
settled amount of Rs. 56,000/- on 10.03.2016 and out of which
Rs.21,000/- by cheque and rest of the amount in cash, however, he
admitted that he had not mentioned about the withdrawal of PF
amount in his claim statement and affidavit Ex. WW1/A and further
admitted that he had not filed any tracking report of the registered
receipt Ex.WW1/2. He further stated that he cannot say whether the
correct address of the management is 10212-16, Ganga Ram
building, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, however, he
admitted that the building no. 10212-16 is not mentioned on the Ex
WW1/1.
17. During further cross examination, WW-1 denied the suggestion
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 8/16
that the management had not received the demand notice dated
24.09.2020, however, he admitted that the manager of the
management appeared in the conciliation proceedings before
conciliation officer. He denied his signature on Ex. WW1/7 and
denied the suggestion that Ex. WW1/7 was a forged and fabricated
document as it does not belong to the management.
18. During further cross examination, WW-1 denied the suggestion
that he had resigned from the job of the management on 29.02.2016
and further denied the suggestion that the management had not
terminated from the services. He further stated his household
expenses are managed from income earned from cultivation and he
did not search for any job from 2016 till 2023.
19. Thereafter, on 11.01.2024, workman evidence was closed vide
his separate statement. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for
management evidence.
20. On behalf of the Management, MW1 Sh. Anil Kumar tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MWI/A. He relied upon the
following documents: (i) Certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 Ex. MW1/1 (de-exhibited as MW1/X), (ii) Bank
account details of the workman, Ex. MW1/1, (iii) HDFC bank
statement dated 15.03.2016, EX. MW1/2, (iv) Reply/Written
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 9/16
statement filed by the management before conciliation officer Ex.
MW1/3 (OSR), (v) ESI returns from October 2015 to September
2020 Ex. MW1/4 (colly).
21. Thereafter, MW-1 was cross examined by Sh. Pawan Kumar, AR
for the Workman. During cross examination, MW-1 stated that
management had not issued any appointment letter to the workman
at the time of his recruitment and denied the suggestion that the
management had refused the loan to the workman in 2013 at the
time of marriage of his daughter. MW-1 further stated that the
workman had submitted his resignation on 29.02.2016 Ex.
WW1/M1. It is wrong to suggest that the workman had resigned
from the job of the management on 29.02.2016.
22. During further cross examination, MW-1 denied the suggestion
that the management had taken the signature of the workman
Ex.WW1/M1 by signing on the document to be able to PF loan for
the marriage of his daughter and further denied that the amount of
cheque of Rs. 21,000/- given to the workman on 10.03.20216 was
towards his salary and was given not towards full and final
settlement amount. MW-1 further denied the suggestion that the
workman had worked with the management after 29.02.2016 till
24.09.2020.
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 10/16
23. Thereafter, management evidence was closed vide separate
statement of MW-1 Sh. Anil Kumar on 04.04.2024. Thereafter, the
matter was adjourned for final arguments.
24. Final arguments were heard from both the parties. File
perused.
25. Now, in the light of evidence available on record and
submissions made by the parties, my issuewise findings are as
under:
ISSUES NO. 1 & 2
26. Both the issues are interlinked and decided together. The
workman in this case has claimed that he was employed with the
management from 2002 at the post of guard and his services were
terminated illegally on 24.09.2020. On the other hand, Management
has not denied the existence of employeremployee relationship
between the parties, however, it is claimed on behalf of the
management that the workman had voluntarily resigned from his job
on 29.02.2016. The workman in evidence has filed on record EPF
form 31, Ex.WW1/3 and copy of EPF Form no. 19, Ex. WW1/4.
The said document mentions that the workman had resigned from
the job on 29.02.2016. The workman examined himself as WW1.
During his cross examination, the Management had put three
documents Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M3 to him and he has
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 11/16
admitted his signatures on all the three documents. Ex.WW1/M1 is a
resignation letter submitted on behalf of the workman. Ex.WW1/2 is
the settlement letter, wherein workman had agreed for Rs. 56,000/
as full and final settlement and Ex.WW1/M3 is the voucher through
which the salary for the month of February amounting to Rs.
11,500/ has been paid to the workman. The workman had admitted
his signatures on these documents and they clearly mentions that the
workman had resigned from the job of the management. Thus, it
stand established that he has resigned from the job.
27. Management further claimed that the workman had settled the
amount for Rs.56,000/ out of which Rs. 35,000/ was paid in cash
while Rs.21,000/ was paid through cheque on 10.03.2016. The
workman had not denied that the said amount of Rs. 21,000/was
received by him through cheque. However, a suggestion was given
to the witness for the management that the amount was towards the
salary and it was not towards full and final settlement. The workman
in his claim has submitted that his last drawn salary was Rs.11,500/
per month, the amount which was given through cheque is Rs.
21,000/ which is double his salary. The workman has failed to give
explanation as to why the management would pay him double the
amount of his salary. On the other hand, payment of Rs.21,000/
further fortifies the claim of the management that the matter has
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 12/16
been settled with the workman for Rs.56,000/. The workman had
further stated in his cross examination about searching for a job.
The answer is as follows:
"I do not search for any job from 2016 till 2023".
This statement of the workman fortifies the claim of the
management that the workman resigned from the job of the
management in 2016. Because workman has claimed that he was
working with the Management till 2020, in that case there was no
need for him to search for job from 2016.
28. The workman has mentioned his year of birth to be 1966,
however, during his cross examination he admitted that he was born
in the year 1955. The document Ex.WW1/3 and Ex.WW1/4 filed on
behalf of the workman further reveals that his date of birth is
mentioned as 20.11.1955. Thus, the workman as per his date of birth
would had attained the age of superannuation in 2015 and it further
fortifies the case of the management that he has resigned from his
job on 29.02.2016.
29. The workman in his claim has stated that the management
was not providing him with legal facilities. The management cross
examined the witness on this aspect and he admitted that he was
getting facility of PF during his employment period. Thus, the
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 13/16
ground taken by the workman on the basis of which termination is
alleged is false of non providing of statutory facilities.
30. It is further claimed by the workman that he was working with
the management since 2002. The workman has filed on record
Ex.WW1/3 and Ex.WW1/4. Perusal of Ex.WW1/3 reveals that it
mentions the date of joining of the workman to be 01.08.2009 and
the management has also claimed that the workman had joined his
services on 01.08.2009. Thus, Ex.WW1/3 clearly proves that the
workman has falsely stated that he had been working with the
management since 2002, as the workman had based his claim on
false facts, the onus is upon him to prove that his services were
illegally terminated by the management. In a case titled as Diamond
Toys Company (P) Ltd., vs. Toofani Ram, WP(C) 4501/04, decided
by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 07/02/07, a case was filed by the
workman alleging termination on the ground that Management has
not provided with legal facilities and when he demanded the same
his services were illegally terminated, however, ultimately it was
established that the services were actually provided. The award was
passed in his favour by the Trial Court but the Hon'ble High Court
set aside the award and made the following observations:
"The very basis of the claim of the workman regarding
termination of his service by the management was that he
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 14/16
made demands for appointment letter and other legal
benefits under law and on making these demands the
management got annoyed and terminated his services.
This basis got knocked out when the workman admitted in
his evidence that appointment letter was issued to him and
the legal benefits like provident fund, ESI etc. were being
given to him and he was being paid wages after obtaining
his signatures in the wage register. He had not stated in
his statement of claim when he put overtime, how much
was his overtime which was refused to him or when he
applied for leave which was not granted to him. Once, the
basis on which a workman claimed that he was terminated
stands knocked out, a heavy onus shifts to the workman to
show that his services were actually terminated by the
management and to show the reasons for termination. The
termination is a positive act of the management and
management has to do this act for some reason. The
respondent was working as a helper. Helper is an
unskilled person and appointed to do some job and unless there is some reason his service would not be terminated by the management. Moreover, the workman was working with the management for more than two years he had gained experience with the management during this period and had become more useful for the management day by day. Why the management should have terminated his services without any reason, when the statutory period of 240 days was already there and any break in service would not have helped management. The falsity of the claim of the workman is writ large. In the notice served upon the management, he described himself as a mechanic, which is a skilled workman. In the statement of claim he described himself as a karigar while actually he was appointed as an helper. He harped upon providing of legal facilities like appointment letter, ESI, Provident Fund, wage register etc. while he admitted in his cross LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 15/16 examination that all legal facilities were being given to him."
31. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reveals that when the claim is based on false facts, an heavy onus is upon the workman to show that his services were terminated by the Management and also to show the reasons of termination. In this case, the management has been able to prove through evidence that workman has resigned his job. It has come on record the basis on which the claim is filed is false, thus, both the issues are decided in favour of the management.
32. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, the claim of the claimant is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. The present reference stands answered accordingly.
33. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication as per rules.
34. File be consigned to record room.
ARUN Digitally signed
by ARUN GOEL
Announced in open court GOEL Date: 2024.04.23
15:51:36 +0530
on Dated: 23.04.2024 (Arun Goel)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court X
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi: 23.04.2024
LIR No. 350/22 Doodhnath vs. M/s. Gujral Sons Page 16/16