Delhi District Court
Workmen vs . on 1 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I, ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS , NEW DELHI.
I.D. No. 167/11
New ID no. 38/16
Workmen
Ramraj and ors,
C/o Hindustan Engineering
& General Mazdoor Union
D-2/24, Sultanpuri, New Delhi-86
Vs.
The Management of
M/s N-Echo Drycleaners (Registered)
29, Central Market, near Deep Cinema
Ashok Vihar, New Delhi-52
Date of institution : 03.10.2011
Date of reserving award : 01.04.2022
Date of award : 01.04.2022
(MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD CASE)
AWARD
1.Office of Deputy Labour Commissioner (North-West District), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication to this Tribunal vide notification No. F-24/ID. Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 1/13 (273)/10/NWD/(277)/11/Lab./4876-80 dated : 23.09.2011 with following terms of the reference:-:-
"(i) Whether the demand of the workmen for annual increment is justified; and if yes, from which date and at which rate and what directions are necessary in this respect;
(ii) Whether demand of the workmen for two summer and two winter uniforms, every year is justified; and if yes, what directions are necessary in this respect;
(iii) Whether demand of the workmen for House Rent Allowance is justified; and if yes, from which date and at what rate and what directions are necessary in this respect;
(iv) Whether demand of the workmen for Conveyance Allowance is justified; and if yes, from which date and at what rate and what directions are necessary in this respect;
v) Whether demand of the workmen for two pairs of shoes every year is justified; and if yes, from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect?
vi) Whether the workmen are entitled for payment of bonus w.e.f January, 2010 and if yes, at what rate and what directions are necessary in this respect?
2. Statement of claim has been filed by the workmen, wherein it is claimed:
Old ID no. 167/11
New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 2/13
(a) Workers of the management have been working hard and honestly for a long time and benefiting the management and had never given any opportunity of complaint to the management. Management is also running its office at S-731, Sheesh Mahal, Shalimar village, New Delhi ;
(b)Due to increasing inflation, it has become impossible to survive with the salary because the inflation is at high peak, due to which employees have become upset and the financial condition of the workmen are also getting worse day by day.
(c) In view of the problems of the employees, Union General Secretary Sh. Narayan Singh called a meeting of General Body of the Union on 10.05.2010 in which all the employees of the management were also present. A resolution was passed unanimously to send a demand letter to management to fulfill the demands as mentioned in the statement of claim;
(d)The workmen have sent the demand letter dated 15.05.2010 through registered post to the management, but management neither replied to the Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 3/13 demand notice nor the demands of the workmen were fulfilled.
Hence, it is prayed in the Statement of claim to pass an award in favour of the workmen and directions be given to the management to fulfill their demands.
3. Written statement has been filed by the management, wherein following preliminary objections have been taken:
(a) No proper, valid and genuine notice of demand was ever served upon the management by the workmen as represented by Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union, finally culminating in the present reference.
(b) The union has no locus standi to file the present claim on behalf of the workman ;
(c) Workmen as represented by union have not come before this Tribunal with clean hands and have suppressed material facts from this Tribunal with malafide intention and ulterior motive just to harass and extort money from the management.
(d) Management has been running a shop for dry cleaners of clothes in the name and style of M/s Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 4/13 N-ecko Dry Cleaners. There are no manufacturing and production activities in the shop. There are only 6-7 persons employed and as such inter-alia ESIC, EPF and Gratuity etc were not applicable.
(e) Espousal of the dispute is not as per law. As such, reference made by the Government is not maintainable.
Rest of the contentions of the statement of claim more or less are denied and dismissal of the statement of claim is prayed for.
4. Rejoinder has been filed by the workmen, wherein all objections raised in the preliminary objections have been denied and the contentions made in the statement of claim are reiterated and affirmed. It is also submitted that demand of the workmen are genuine and reasonable and management is in a position to meet such demands.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.10.2012:-
"(i) Whether any proper valid and genuine notice of demand was served Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 5/13 upon the management, if not, its effect? ...OPW
(ii) Whether the Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union has locus standi to file statement of claim and represent workmen? .... OPW
(iii) Whether the present claim of the workmen has been properly espoused by the Union?".......OPW
(iv) As per terms of reference.
6. To prove their case, workmen have examined WW-1 to WW-6 as workmen witnesses. They have tendered their evidence by way of affidavits, which are Ex.WW1/A to Ex. WW- 6/A, in which they have affirmed the contents of statement of claim. WW-1 Ramraj has also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/20 and Ex.WW1/19A. The documents are mentioned as under:
i. Ex WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/8 are the subscription receipts of the workman Ramraj;
ii. Ex WW1/9 to Ex. WW1/12 are the AD cards; iii. Ex.WW1/13 is the postal receipt; iv. Ex. WW/14 is the acknowledgement of money order; v. Ex. WW1/15 is the leave application of workman Ramraj;
vi. Ex. WW1/16 is the statement of claim; vii. Ex WW1/17 is the complaint written by the Union to the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 06.04.2010;Old ID no. 167/11
New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 6/13 viii.Ex. WW1/18(colly) is the minutes of General body meeting dated 10.05.2010;
ix. Ex. WW1/19 is the demand letter dated 15.05.2010; x. Ex. WW1/19A is the postal receipt; xi. Ex. WW1/20 is the AD card;
WW-2 Ram Sagar has relied upon Ex. WW2/1(Colly) in addition to above documents. WW-3 Ram Parvesh has relied upon Ex. WW3/1(Colly) in addition to above documents. WW-4 Mahendra has also relied upon Ex. WW4/1(Colly) in addition to above documents. WW-5 Amarnath has relied upon Ex.
WW5/1(Colly) in addition to above documents. WW-6 Mahender has relied upon Ex. WW6/1(Colly) in addition to above documents. Ex. WW2/1 to Ex. WW6/1 are monthly subscriptions of the union.
Thereafter, workmen have examined Sh. Narain Singh, General Secretary of the Union as WW-7 and he relied upon the documents as mentioned above.
WW-2 to Ex. WW-6 have been cross-examined by the management, however, WW-1 and WW-7 have not been cross-examined by the management despite opportunity given.Old ID no. 167/11
New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 7/13
7. To prove its case, management has not examined any witness nor tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, hence, ME was closed vide order dated 28.03.2022.
8. Final arguments have been heard at length as advanced by Sh. Kailash Kumar Jonwal, ld. AR on behalf of workman. None appeared for arguments on behalf of management despite opportunities given to the management.
9. I have gone through the entire record of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led and documents proved during evidence.
10. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the workmen, which have been considered.
11. My issue wise findings are:-
Issue no.1:
Whether any proper valid and genuine notice of demand was served upon the management, if not, its effect? ...OPW Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 8/13 The demand notice has been proved by WW-1 as Ex. WW1/19. It is the photocopy of a document. This is supported by a document Ex. WW1/19A which is a postal receipt. In Ex. WW1/19, there are imprints of some signatures which have not been proved. Signatures have not been identified by author of the document. In Ex. WW19/A, WW-1 has not deposed that Ex. WW1/19 bears his signatures. Therefore, this document has not been proved in accordance with the law. In such circumstances, service of demand notice has not been proved by the workmen. Therefore, this document has not been proved in accordance with the law. In such circumstances, service of demand notice upon the workmen has not been proved in accordance with the law. This demand notice has not been served through union. Only copy of the same has been sent to the General Secretary, Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union by the workmen. Therefore, in such circumstances, workmen are not able to discharge the onus to prove that they have served the proper, valid and genuine notice of demand upon the workmen. Issue no. 2. Whether the Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union has locus stand to file statement of claim and represent workmen?....OPW Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 9/13 The onus to prove this issue was on the workmen. In Ex. WW1/A to Ex. WW7/A none of the witnesses has made any deposition to discharge the onus to prove this issue.
Therefore, in view of absence of any deposition by WW-1 to WW-7, this issue is answered against the workmen. Even in the statement of claim, no averment has been made regarding Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union having any locus standi to file statement of claim and represent the present workmen. When the aforesaid union has been registered, is not mentioned nor any document in this regard has been filed. Hence, this issue is answered against the workmen. ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the present claim of the workmen has been espoused by the Union?
Workmen in order to prove this issue has relied upon documents Ex. WW1/17 and Ex. WW1/18(colly). However, these documents are only photocopies. Moreover, Ex. WW1/17 is a complaint filed by the union to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Further, espousal of the union has not been filed on record which could establish that the case of the workmen has been duly espoused by the union. Agenda of the Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 10/13 meeting/resolution has not been proved in accordance with the law. It is not proved that any notice was given to the workmen regarding the agenda of the meeting. No copy of constitution has been filed on record which could prove that meeting could be presided over by General Secretary in place of President.
It is not the case of the workmen that majority number of the workmen have duly represented the cause of the workmen. Even, WW-7 Sh. Narain Singh, General Secretary of the Union has not identified any signature on Ex. WW1/17 and Ex. WW1/18 during his deposition before this Tribunal. Hence, Ex. WW1/17 and Ex. WW1/18 have not been proved in accordance with the law as the author of these documents has not identified his signatures on these documents. The workmen in their statement of claim have mentioned about their demands but no supporting fact or reason has been submitted against those demands except a vague submission that due to raising inflation they require increase of salary and other facilities. No material or document has been brought by the workmen or proved by the workmen in support of their arguments. During cross- examination, WW-2 has admitted that he is receiving minimum wages from the management. He has further admitted that he is Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 11/13 working with the management which is a shop of dry cleaner.
In these circumstances, when nothing has been proved by the workmen to support the demands made by the workmen in their statement of claim and no specific averment has been made in respect of all such submissions except vague allegations regarding raising of demands, hence, workmen are not eligible for any relief from this Tribunal.
Further, Hon'ble High Court in para no. 14 of Management of Hotel Samrat Vs Govt of NCT and ors, 2007 LLR 386 has held that Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate only an industrial dispute. When this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the cause of the workmen was not espoused, then, the Tribunal lost its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute since no industrial dispute exists. Therefore, in this case also, this Tribunal has decided issue of espousal against the workmen, thus, regarding deciding of other issues, this Tribunal has lost its jurisdiction.
Keeping in view the observations made herein-above, reference is also answered against the workmen. Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 12/13
12. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in open Tribunal JITENDRA Digitally signed
by JITENDRA
on this 1st day of April, 2022 KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2022.04.01
MISHRA 16:07:03 +0530
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)
POIT-I/Rouse Avenue Courts,
New Delhi
Old ID no. 167/11
New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 13/13
Old ID no. 167/11
New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 14/13 Old ID no. 167/11 New ID no. 38/16 Workmen Vs. M/s N Ecko dry cleaners Page no. 15/13