Delhi District Court
Between The vs The on 6 February, 2013
1/19
IN THE COURT OF SH.S.S.MALHOTRA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
ID NO. 273/11
Unique Case I.D. No. 02402C0162292011
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh.Dungar Mal
s/o Sh.Mota Ram
Represented by
Delhi General Mazdoor Front,
BK1/33B, Janta Flat, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi88
AND THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
A104/13, Wazirpur Industrial Area,
Delhi52
Date of Institution : 24.05.2011
Date on which award reserved : 31.01.2013
Date of passing of award : 06.02.2013
AWARD
1 Vide this order, I shall dispose off the reference no. F. 24/ID.
(655)/10/NWD/(101)/10/Lab./400105 dated 15.5.2011 as received from
the Dy. Labour Commissioner, North West District, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
to the following effect:
"Whether services of Sh. Dungar Mal s/o Sh.Mota Ram have been
illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the management; and if yes, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?".
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
2/19
2 After receiving of the reference, notice was sent to the
claimant/workman with direction to file the statement of claim which he has
filed and as per the statement of claim the workman has stated that he was
working with the management since 1998 as a 'Timekeeper' and his last
drawn salary was Rs. 10,600/ per month and he was working with full
dedication and had never afforded any opportunity of complaint to the
management. There were about 200 employees who had been working with
the management in shifts and each shift was of 12 hours and every
workman was compelled to work for 4 hours extra per day that too without
paying overtime charges. The management M/s Golyan Metal Pvt. Ltd.
A104/13, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52, M/s Anil Metal Industries
A104/9, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52 and M/s Vinayak Metal
Industries A104/4 are being operated by Sh.Mahesh Leela, Roshan Lal and
Sh.Vinod. They all are in the production line of same material and as per
their own convenience & satisfaction, the managements used to extract
work from the concerned workman for their establishments and the
workman had never been issued any transfer letters and as such the
workman was never informed that what is his proper management and the
management even had never been maintaining proper service records of
their employees nor any legal facilities like appointment letter, attendance
card, wage slip, leave book, bonus disbursement record, attendance and
wage register, casual leave, bonus, ESI and PF were being provided to the
workman and even ESI card which was being furnished to the workman
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
3/19
subsequently used to be changed, as the working place of the workman
used to be changed and on a fresh date of appointment , fresh ESI Card was
being given. The contribution towards PF was being deducted by the
management but no such detail was being provided to the workman rather
the management had been obtaining the signatures from their employees
from time to time with sole motive to utilize the blank papers as per their
convenience and subsequently when the workman alongwith other
employees started demanding legal facilities and proper implementation of
the service facilities and also demanded the salary as per minimum wages of
their designation, the management started threatening the workman
alongwith other employees by stating that they would be implicated in
false cases and as such the workman alongwith other employees of the
management joined the union namely General Mazdoor Front Union to
fight for their demands. It is further stated that when the present workman
who was deputed with M/s Anil Metal Industries protested for all such
demands, the management got annoyed and some gunda elements at the
instance of the management attacked the workman on 26.8.2010 and other
coemployees with the intention to harm them with bodily injury and even
the services of the workman were also terminated on the same day by the
management without any reason, without giving any notice in writing or
any compensation. It is further submitted that neither any domestic inquiry
was conducted nor they were chargesheeted before termination and as such
aggrieved from this fact, the workman issued a demand notice on 31.8.2010
through the Union but the management did not give any attention to the
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
4/19
notice. The workman thereafter filed a complaint before the Dy.Labour
Commissioner through Union where the management appeared and stated
that the management has already been closed down w.e.f 31.3.08 and all the
three managements have been merged in M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd. i.e.the
present management and it is further submitted that the said facts were
never brought to the notice of the concerned workman earlier during his
employment. It is further stated that after the service of notice from the
Labour Office at Nimri Colony, some of the employees were even called
and they were paid wages in the presence of the Labour Inspector but the
management refused to take back the workman on duty and thereafter the
conciliation proceedings were initiated by the workman which also failed
and ultimately the matter was referred before this court for adjudication and
the workman has filed the statement of claim with a prayer that award be
passed in favour of the workman and against the management thereby
holding that the services of the workman were illegally and unjustifiably
terminated by the management and he is entitled to reinstatement with full
back wages and other consequential reliefs.
3 The management was served and it filed its written statement by
taking Preliminary Objections that the claimant was employed with the
management and was working as a 'Supervisor' and his salary was Rs.
8500/ p.m and he had left the services of the management of his own on
29.5.2010 and as such he does not come within the definition of 'workman'
as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D Act, 1947 and even otherwise the management
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
5/19
has closed its unit on 21.2.2011 and the workman otherwise is not entitled
for any relief after the date of closure . As far as merits are concerned,
relationship is not disputed . However length of service is denied and it is
submitted that the workman joined the management only on 1.4.08 and had
left his services on his own on 29.5.2010. It is further submitted that the
factories of the management came into existence in the year 2008 only and,
therefore, question of the claimant concerned being employed with the
management prior to that does not arise. It is denied that about 200
employees had been working for production in two shifts for the
management and it is submitted that in all the three factories about 6080
employees were employed. The fact of compelling the workman to do
overtime is denied and it is submitted that if any worker was called to do
overtime, he was being paid accordingly. It is also submitted that M/s Anil
Metal Industries, M/s Vinayak Metal Industries and M/s Gohlyan Metal
Industries were closed w.e.f 31.3.08 and the workers employed therein had
received their full and final settlement of account and thereafter some of
them have taken employment with M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd i.e.the
present management. It is further submitted that the claimant was earlier
employed with M/s Vinayak Metal Industries w.e.f 1.4.07. It is denied that
the legal facilities were not being provided to the workman or that service
record of the employees were not being maintained as alleged. It is also
denied that ESIC benefits were being given to the workers after several
years of their employment or that the management was deducting PF from
the wages of the employees and was not providing the record pertaining to
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
6/19
the said amount. It is further submitted that the claimant concerned had
never demanded any legal benefits from the management as the
management was providing all the benefits as applicable to it and it is
further denied that the workman was deputed by the management at M/s
Anil Metal Industries, A104/9, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52 or that
the claimant concerned with other coworkers opposed the illegal activities
of the management or the management called some gunda elements inside
the factory on 26.8.2010 or his earned wages for the month of August,
2010 were withheld and it is submitted that M/s Anil Metal Industries was
permanently closed w.e.f 31.3.2008 and as such question of anybody being
deputed with M/s Anil Metal Industries on 26.8.10 does not arise. It is
reiterated that the workman has already left the services of his own on
29.5.2010 and , therefore, the workman has not completed continuous
service of one year from the date of appointment and it is submitted that
since he himself has left the services on 29.5.2010, he is not entitled for any
benefit under I.D Act. It is submitted that the workman never turned up
after 29.5.2010 and as such he was not employed with the management on
26.8.2010 on which he is alleged to have been terminated. Other facts are
also denied and it is prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed.
4 Workman thereafter filed rejoinder thereby denying all the facts of
the written statement and reiterating the facts of statement of claim as
correct.
5 After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on
15.12.2011:
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
7/19
1 Whether the claimant had been working with the management
regularly since year 1998 at the post of 'Timekeeper' drawing last wages
@ Rs.10,600/per month?
2 Whether the claimant himself left the services of the
management w.e.f 29.5.2010?
3 Whether the claimant comes within the definition of workman
as defined u/s 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
4 Whether the services of the workman have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management OPW
5 Relief
6 After framing up of the issues, the workman was directed to lead
evidence. Workman has examined himself as WW1 and has closed his
evidence and thereafter Ld.ARM submitted that he does not want to lead
any evidence and accordingly, ME was closed and the matter was fixed for
final arguments.
7 I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My issuewise
findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1, & 3
8 Onus to prove the issue no.1 was that he had been working with the
management regularly since 1998 at the post of 'Timekeeper' and was
drawing last wages @ Rs.10,600/p.m was upon the workman and onus to
prove the issue no.3 was also upon the workman and he had to prove that he
comes within the definition of 'workman' as defined u/.s 2(s) of the I.D Act,
1947. Since the issue no.3 is a primary issue as disposal of this issue would
determine as to whether the claimant is a workman within the definition of
section 2(s) of the I.D Act, 1957, court is taking up this issue first and only
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
8/19
thereafter the evidence with respect to issue no.1 would be relevant and
would be considered.
9 Now, coming to the issue no.3. The claimant claims himself to be the
workman by stating that he was appointed as a 'timekeeper' by the
management whereas in the WS, the management denied this fact and stated
that the workman was not appointed as a 'timekeeper rather he was
working as a 'Supervisor' and since he was a 'supervisor', he does not come
within the definition of the workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D Act and
as such he is not entitled for any relief.
10 Now, coming to the evidence part. The workman deposed in terms of
the statement of claim and he was cross examined with respect to nature of
duties and in cross examination, he deposed that his work was to note down
the time of the workers when they used to come in the factory of the
management. He never used to do any other work and he used to write time
of the workers of all the three factories. There used to be around 6070
workers in each factory per shift and he used to write time of the entry of
each worker whenever they used to come inside the factory. He denied the
suggestion that it was not possible for a single person to write time of every
worker in all the shifts . He denied that he was a supervisor and he
volunteered that the work of supervisor was different than what used to be
of him and he used to give the time written by him to the accountant and he
used to fill the attendance. He denied the suggestion that he never done
overtime with the management and deposed that his last drawn salary was
Rs.10,600/. He volunteered that he worked for 12 hours. The management
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
9/19
although has cross examined the workman intensively yet despite having
granted opportunity to the management, it did not lead its evidence in
support of the contention that he was a 'supervisor'.
11 This is the entire evidence on this issue. Law with respect to working
of a person either as a worker or supervisor is well settled and it is a dictate
of law that mere designation does not determine the status of the particular
claimant/employee rather the same is determined on the basis of nature of
duties, he is performing. Section 2(s) of the I.D Act reads as under:
'Workman' means any person employed 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:
1 who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) or the
Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or
2 who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other
employee of a prison; or
3 who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity; or
4 who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages
exceeding(ten thousand 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 of a managerial nature.
12 In the statement of claim, the workman has stated that he is a 'time
keeper' and deposed categorically that he used to write the time of entry of
each worker whenever he used to enter inside the factory and he was not
being given any other job. Court is of the opinion that the word' supervisor'
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
10/19
signifies to supervise something i.e.before a person is designated as a
supervisor, there must be something on record to show that he had been
supervising some of the work given by the management over some other
workers. No such sort of evidence has been placed on record by the
management that the workman was supervising something/some worker.
Even it has not been mentioned by the management in the WS as what
particular activity in the management was being allegedly supervised by the
workman i.e.as to whether he was supervising the manpower, machinery,
production, purchase, store or outging material. Merely a bald assertion is
made by the management that the workman was a supervisor without
explaining that what he was supervising, in the considered opinion of this
court is only a half hearted pleadings. Even otherwise no appointment letter
has been filed by the management on court record to show that what was the
initial appointment of the workman or what designation was assigned to the
workman at the time of initial appointment. The management itsle has not
led any evidence on this issue and there is only a pleading and some cross
examination of the workman. All the suggestions were given by the
management to the workman are denied and there is no document to prove
such suggestion given by the management. In fact the management has not
been able to impeach the testimony of the workman.
13 In the background of all such facts that the workman was working
as a 'timekeeper' and also keeping in view that his testimony that he was
only 'timekeeper' could not be impeached by the management, it is held
that the claimant comes within the definition of workman as defined u/s 2(s)
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
11/19
of the I.D Act, 1947. Issue no.3 stands disposed off.
14 Now, coming to the issue no.1. Since the court has already held
hereinabove that the claimant comes within the definition of workman as
defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D Act, the court is now turning to issue no.1 which
is pertaining to the fact that the workman was working since 1998 or
whether his salary was Rs.10,600/p.m. Workman claimed that he was
working with the management since 1998 and in WS this fact is denied and
it is stated that the workman was working with the management only we.f
1.4.08 i.e.on which the present management came into existence and as such
there is no question of worker being employed with the management from
1998. In para no.6 of the WS, the management has admitted that the
claimant concerned was earlier employed with M/s Vinayak Metal
Industries w.e.f 1.4.07. Contention of the workman from the very beginning
that the management was running 4 factories and the management used to
take work from its employees as per its own convenience in either of the
factories. The admission of the management in para no.6 that this workman
was earlier worked with M/s Vinayak Metal Industries signifies this fact.
15 The management in para no.6 of the WS has quite elaborately stated
that there are four firms namely, M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd., M/s Anil
Metal Industries, M/s Vinayak Metal Industries and M/s Gohlyan Metal
Industry and the first one is a company and it is further submitted that the
factories of M/s Anil Metal Industries, M/s Vinayak Metal Industries and
M/s Gohlyan Metal Industries were closed w.e.f 31.3.08 and workers
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
12/19
employed therein had received full and final settlement of account and
thereafter some of them had taken employment with M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.
Ltd. The next sentence is very important where the management has stated
that the claimant was earlier employed with M/s Vinayak Metal Industries
w.e.f 1.4.07. Since the management is coming with the plea that the
workman was employed with M/s Vinayak Metal Industries and it also
contends that the workers employed therein had received full and final
settlement of account and some of them have taken employment with M/s
Golyan Metal Pvt. Ltd and the then it is the management who has now to
prove that the present workman was brought into the present management
by way of appointment letter or that he had ever resigned from M/s Vinayak
Metal Industries or then had taken full and final settlement from M/s
Vinayak Metal Industries. Admittedly, the management has not placed on
record any full and final settlement by which it can be said that the
workman was given full and final settlement by firm M/s Vinayak Metal
Industries.
16 The management otherwise has been contending that all the firms are
having their different identities and have no concern with the present
management but in terms of para no.6 of the WS, it is clear that all the firms
are being run by the same group of persons and the workman has already
stated in the statement of claim that establishment of M.s Golyan Metal
Pvt. Ltd, A104/13, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52, M/s Anil Metal
Industries, A104/9, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52 and M/s Vinayak
Metal Industries, A104/4 Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52 are being
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
13/19
operated by Sh.Mahesh Leela, Roshan Lal and Vinod where nature of
production is same and the management as per their convenience and
satisfaction used to extract work from the concerned workman in either of
the three establishments from time to time without issuing any transfer
letter. It is also admitted by the management in para no.2 of the WS where it
has stated that the respondent management had its factories at A104/13,
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52, A104/9, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52 and A104/4 Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi52 and all the factories of the management have closed w.e.f 21.2.2011 and in para no.6, it is stated that the managements namely M/s Anil Metal Industries, M/s Vinayak Industries and M/s Gohlyan Metal Industry were closed w.e.f 31.3.08 and it is further stated that present workman had been working with the management namely M/s Vinayak Metal Industries w.e.f 1.4.07 and had taken full and final settlement. Thus, from all these facts, it is clear that present management is also being run by same person who earlier had been running M/s Vinayak Metal Industries. The totality of the WS conveys the meaning that all the factories(the court is using the word' Factories intentionally as it is stated by the management in para no.2 of the WS) under the control of some group of persons. It has all the knowledge of previous management, it has all the record of the previous management and it can categorically state that the workman was working with M/s Vinayak Metak Industries from 1.4.07. Despite that it is claimed that all the three managements are different managements. For the purpose of their internal administrative work, they may be different firms but if the management Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
14/19intends to prove that they are different firms qua the workman then it is the management who atleast has to prove that it had issued the appointment letter to the workman from a particular firm and then transferred him to another firm. If the management contends that the workman was a fresh appointee with the management, it must be having fresh appointment letter for the workman but it has not filed the same on court record . NO full and final settlement document has been filed on record. However, despite this there is no evidence with the workman to prove that he had been working with the management prior to 1.4.07 even with M/s Vinayak Metal Industries. Therefore, it is held that the workman has failed to prove that he had been working with the present management or with M/s Vinayak Metal Industries w.e.f 1998 and it is held that he had been working with this management or M/s Vinayak Metal Industries which appears to be the concern of the present management from 1.4.07. As far as last drawn salary of the workman is concerned, for all practical purposes the last drawn salary of the workman is Rs.8500/p.m as admitted by the management in its WS. Issue no.1 is disposed off.
ISSUE NO.2 & 4 17 Onus to prove the issue no.2 was upon the management and it had to prove that the workman has left the services of the management w.e.f 29.5.2010 and onus to prove the issue no.4 was upon the workman and he had to prove that services of the workman have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management. Both these issues are corelated and Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
15/19finding of issue no.2 has a direct bearing on issue no.4. If the management has been able to prove that the workman has left the services of the management of his own then the workman would not be able to prove that his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management and vice versa.
18 Claim of the management is that the workman has left the services of the management of his own . The management has not led any evidence to prove this fact. It is not clear from the WS as to what steps the management has taken if the workman has left the services of his own. The only fact as averred by the management in the WS is that the claimant was working with the management since 1.4.08 and left the services on 29.5.2010. It is not averred at all that whether the workman has left the job after resignation or whether he received any compensation as full and final settlement on 29.5.2010. It is not clear as to whether the management has written any letter if he left the services on 29.5.2010 asking him the reason as to why he left the services or why he is not coming on duty nor any letter has been written thereby calling the workman back on duty. No departmental inquiry has been initiated against the workman. To prove that the workman is not entitled to any relief when he leaves the services of the management, it is incumbent upon the management to prove that such leaving of the workman amounts to misconduct and as it is only in the case of misconduct by the workman, the management is not duty bound to initiate any inquiry against the workman but atleast it has to prove that the workman has misconducted himself. In the present case, there is not even the pleading to prove the mis Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
16/19conduct much less to prove. Therefore, the management has failed to prove that the workman has left the services of his own on 29.5.2010 which inter alia means that the services of the workman have been illegally terminated by the management.
19 One of the contention of the management in this matter is that the management has closed its factory w.e.f 21.2.2011. No issue to that effect has been framed. The court is of the opinion that this was required to be framed and accordingly, is being taken up and an additional issue is framed today as under:
" Whether the management has closed its manufacturing activities permanently on 21.2.2011? if so, its effects? OPM
20 The management has not led any evidence on this issue(although it has led evidence in other cases with respect to closure which would be discussed in those matters) and, therefore, it is held that the management has failed to prove this issue & the court can not refer any opinion nor grant any benefit to the management on the basis of evidence of the management in other case.
21 As far as issue with respect to completion of 240 days of continuous service is concerned, it is argued by the management that the onus to prove the issue was upon the workman and once the management has taken the plea, the workman has to prove it by calling the record of the management and since the workman has not called the register of the management , the workman has failed to prove this fact.
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
17/1922 I have perused the pleadings. In the WS, the management has stated that the workman joined the management on 1.4.08 and left the services of the management on 29.5.2010 without contending that whether the workman was absent from duty in the intervening period of 1.4.08 to 29.5.10 for a long time or whether he used to remain absent intermittently or whether he was on leave. There is no such pleadings. The court is of the opinion that if the plain meaning of the WS of the management is understood then it means that the workman has worked regularly w.e.f 1.4.08 to 29.5.10 and if the periof of 240 days prior to 29.5.2010 i.e.w.e.f 30.5.09 are counted, then there is no pleading for this period where the management would have contended that the workman was absent during this period. Further, on one hand, the management is claiming that mere affidavit of the workman is not sufficient to prove the working of 240 days by the workman in the preceding 12 months and on the other hand, when the turn of management comes to prove, it has not filed even his own affidavit to say such fact on oath and then it would contend that as far as the management is concerned, a simple averment to the aspect is sufficient. The court is not in agreement with the argument and is of the opinion that the workman would be required to prove that he has worked for 240 continuous days of service with the management only if the management who is contesting the matter, would take a plea that the workman was working intermittently or was not regular in doing his duty. This contention of the management, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case is not tenable.
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
18/19RELIEF 23 Keeping in view findings of this court on issue no.1 to 4, the workman is entitled to relief. However, the workman has claimed reinstatement and compensation alongwith full back wages. Court is of the opinion that there is complete loss of faith in between both the parties and in such circumstances, reinstatement of the workman would not be in the interest of both the parties and compensation would be better option. 24 Now, coming to the quantum of compensation. Workman is an able bodied persons and it cannot be presumed that he was sitting without work for all such period . No doubt there may be certain initial difficulties to have alternate job but it cannot be presumed that workman had been sitting idle without any work. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the court is of the opinion that in such cases the lump sum compensation would meet the ends of justice. The court also find support from the following judgments:
1 Rameshwar Dayal vs Presiding Officer Labour Court no.VI, Delhi & Anr.2007 (3) LLJ 729(DHC) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that 'a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/ as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages towards full and final settlement of all claims of the workman was an appropRaite relief'.
2 In Kishan Lal and Ors Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi &
ors 2007 VI AD(Delhi) 13, the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court held mainly to the effect that 'in lieu of grant of
relief of reinstatement and full back wages, the
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
19/19
management was directed to pay to each of the workmen a lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/ towards full and final settlement of all claims of each of such workmen'
25 Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would meet if a lump sum compensation to the extent of Rs.68,000/ is awarded to the workman. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay the awarded amount from date of award within a period of one month, failing which this amount shall carry a simple interest @ 8% per annum till realization.
A copy of this award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (S.S.MALHOTRA)
COURT ON 6th FEBRUARY, 2013 PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURTIX/KKD COURTS:DELHI
Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
20/19
D no.273/11
31.1.2013
Present: None
Arguments are not being advanced. These are 4 connected matters in which arguments have already been heard but since common issue was involved, further opportunity to argue the matter was given. None had appeared on the last date of hearing. One more opportunity is being given to argue the matter failing which all these matters would be disposed off.
Put up for orders on 4.2.2013.
(S.S.MALHOTRA) POLCIX/31.1.2013 Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
21/19 ID no.273/11 6.2.2013 Present: Workman in person
Vide my separate award, a lump sum compensation to the extent of Rs.68,000/ is awarded to the workman. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay the awarded amount from date of award within a period of one month, failing which this amount shall carry a simple interest @ 8% per annum till realization. A copy of this award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
POLCIX/6.2.2013 Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.
22/19Dungar Mal vs M/s Golyan Metal Pvt.Ltd.