Delhi District Court
Ram Bali S/O. Late Sh. Ram Kewal vs M/S. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd on 29 August, 2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
BEFORE LABOUR COURT - XI: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: Mr. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL
(Delhi Higher Judicial Service)
(Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi)
REFERENCE CASE (ID) NO. 2438/16
UNIQUE CASE IDENTIFICATION NO. 02402C0315262013
In the matter of:
Ram Bali S/o. Late Sh. Ram Kewal
R/o. H. No. 148, Gali No.2, Prem Nagar,
IBlock, PhaseII, New Delhi - 110086.
C/o. Engineering and General Mazdoor Union (Regd. 3606),
Bharat Mill Charkhi Gate, Near D - Block,
Karampura, New Delhi 110015. ... Workman / Claimant
Vs.
M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd.
PP2627, Gali No.10,
Industrial Area, Anand Parvat,
New Delhi - 110005. ... Management
Date of institution : 13.09.2013
Date of reserving for award : 20.08.2016
Date of award : 29.08.2016
AWARD
1. TERMS OF REFERENCE
Vide Order No. F.3(215)13/Ref./WD/LAB/1195 dated 26.08.2013 Deputy
Labour Commissioner (West District), Labour Department, Government of N.C.T.
of Delhi, Delhi made the following reference u/s. 10(1) (c) and 12(5) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Labour Department
Notification No. F.1/31/616/Estt./2008/7458 dated 3rd March 2009 for adjudication
by Labour Court No. XI:
''Whether the services of workman Sh. Ram Bali S/o Late Sh. Ram Kewal
Chandra has been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the
management; and if so, what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
Page 1 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
2. CASE OF THE WORKMAN AS PLEADED IN THE STATEMENT OF
CLAIM
i) Workman was working with the management with his complete honesty
and hard labour on the post of 'Fitter' since 02.03.2005 with his last drawn salary of
Rs.8814/ per month. During his service tenure workman did not give any
opportunity to management to have any complaint against him nor there was any
charge against him.
(ii) Management did not provide legal facilities such as appointment letter,
salary slip, attendance card, leave book, etc., to the workman. Workman was
continuously making oral demands for these legal facilities and management
continued giving oral assurance(s) to the workman that the workman should do the
work and legal facilities would be made available to him.
(iii) Management is also having one unit at Manesar, Haryana. On need basis
management occasionally used to send the workman from Delhi to work at
Manesar, Haryana because workman was working as 'Fitter'. Workman used to go
to work at Manesar, Haryana as per orders of the management.
(iv) Workman had told the management that management was occasionally
sending the workman to Manesar, Haryana and the management was not providing
overtime and transfer letter on account of time consumed / 'bardard' on account
workman being sent to Manesar, Haryana as abovesaid. Workman had also told
the management that workman would go to Manesar, Haryana only if management
would provide transfer letter to the workman. Workman had started his services in
M/s. Narendra Press Tech / management herein and workman was also appointed
in the management herein.
(v) Management got annoyed and on 10.02.2013 terminated the services of the
workman without any prior intimation and notice. Management also did not pay
Page 2 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
the salary for the month of January 2013.
(vi) Regarding termination of his services by the management, on 11.03.2013
workman made a complaint to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura, New
Delhi - 15. Labour Inspector visited the management for reinstatement of workman
in service but despite asking of the Labour Inspector the management refused to
reinstate the workman in service and pay earned wages to the workman. Labour
Inspector through notice called the management in his office with records on
19.03.2013, 02.04.2013 and 12.04.2013 but management neither appeared before
the Labour Inspector nor produced any record.
(vii) Workman sent demand notice through speed post to the management but
management refused to take the demand notice.
(viii) Workman through Union filed statement of claim before Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Karampura, New Delhi but attitude of the management during the
conciliation proceedings remained uncooperative. Hence, this reference.
(ix) Workman searched very much for the job but could not get any satisfactory
job and workman wants to join back his duties with the management with all legal
facilities and full back wages.
With these averments workman prayed for an award for his reinstatement in
service with the management with all legal facilities and full back wages.
3. STAND OF MANAGEMENT AS PLEADED IN WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
Management in the WS, while denying the case as pleaded by workman in
the statement of claim, pleaded that workman joined the management at Anand
Parbat unit (Delhi) of the management and subsequently resigned but the
management does not have any document for this period as the records of the
Page 3 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
management got burnt in the fire on the night of 12.03.2008.
The claimant / workman was appointed in the Manesar unit of the
management on 01.06.2007 vide appointment letter dated 01.06.2007 and worked
there till 10.02.2013. The workman was given the ESI Card duly mentioning the
date of his appointment (i.e. 01.06.2007). The management had been filing its ESI
Return wherein the name of the workman is being duly reflected. The last drawn
wages of the workman were Rs.4837/ per month. As the workman was appointed
at Manesar unit, the Delhi unit of management cannot be held liable for the
grievances of the workman and this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain
the present complaint (sic).
The facilities of appointment letter, salary slip, attendance card, leave book
etc. were provided to the workman, the records of which are maintained by the
management and the same are being placed on record. The workman joined duty
as 'Fitter' in Manesar, Gurgaon Unit of management vide appointment letter dated
01.06.2007 and has continuously drawn wages from the Manesar Unit after signing
the wage register and even on the ESI Card, the employer of the workman has been
mentioned as Manesar Unit of management. The Employee State Insurance
Corporation Temporary Identify Certificate issued to the workman also shows the
date and place of appointment of workman. As the workman was appointed at
Manesar unit and was drawing wages from Manaser unit, there was no occasion /
reason for the management to send him to Manesar unit etc., as alleged. The
workman by his own will / deliberately left the job without giving any prior
information to the management and is absent since 11.02.2013. Infact the
management had sent him two call letters dated 15.02.2013 and 08.03.2013 to
rejoin his duties but workman did not turn up. For the remaining earned wages of
the workman the management had sent a money order on 01.03.2013 but the same
was returned back unserved. The notices were sent by management at the address
given by management in his appointment letter and ESI card.
Page 4 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
Management did not receive the complaint dated 11.03.2013 but the Labour
Inspector had come to the management and asked for the records which were
shown to the Labour Inspector then and there. The Labour Inspector was duly
shown the attendance and wages register of the management at Anand Parbat unit,
wherein the name of workman was not appearing. The Labour Inspector was duly
informed that the workman was appointed at Manesar and workman himself
stopped coming to the work, and that management never had an objection
regarding reinstatement of the workman in their unit at Manesar, Gurgaon. On
receiving notices from the Labour Inspector Mr. Ajay Sharma had appeared before
the Labour Inspector on 19.03.2013 and produced before the Labour Inspector the
wages register and attendance register of February, 2013 of M/s. Narendra Press
Tech (P) Ltd. Anand Parbat Unit in which name of the workman was not
appearing. Also in response to notice dated 08.05.2013 from the office of the
Deputy Labour Commissioner for appearing before him on 30.05.2013, the
representative of the management namely Mr. Himanshu alongwith authority letter
appeared before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 30.05.2013 and his statement
was got recorded that workman was employee at Manesar unit and the
management is ready and willing to employ the workman at Manesar unit. Despite
this the workman refused to join at Manesar unit. The workman had sent a demand
notice through speed post to Delhi Unit address of management, whereas it ought
to have been sent on the address of Manesar unit where the workman initially
joined his duty as a 'Fitter' and, therefore, the same was returned back.
Also management is still willing to reinstate the workman in its Manesar
(Gurgaon) Unit, where originally he was appointed.
The workman is a skilled labour doing job of Fitter, as such, it cannot be
presumed that he is unemployed. Workman is gainfully employed. At last
management prayed for dismissal of claim of the workman with heavy exemplary
costs.
Page 5 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
4. REJOINDER
Workman filed rejoinder to the WS of the management denying the stand
taken by the management and reaffirming the averments made in statement of
claim. Workman in the rejoinder pleaded that he was working with the
management at Delhi Unit as Fitter since 02.03.2005 but his ESI Card was got
prepared on 15.12.2005. Attendance of workman used to be marked at Delhi Unit
of management and the workman did not get any appointment letter dated
01.06.2007 and the appointment letter being told about by the management is false
and wrong. On the date (i.e.10.02.2013) management terminated the services of
workman, the workman was working at Delhi Unit of management. Workman did
not receive any letter sent by management and the workman is ready to join duties
with Delhi Unit of management. Workman did not get any ESI card of Manesar,
Haryana and, hence, the workman has no knowledge about the same. Workman
also did not receive any money order. Workman was appointed at Delhi Unit of
management where the workman had given his application for job and bio - data.
5. ISSUES
Vide order dated 21.02.2014 following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the workman deliberately left the job and stopped coming to the
management since 11.02.2013 and failed to join duty despite call back
notices dated 15.02.2013 and 08.03.2013 sent by the management? If so, to
what effect? OPM
(ii) As per terms of reference.
(iii) Relief.
6. EVIDENCE
Workman appeared in the witness box as WW1 Ram Bali and tendered his
examinationinchief vide affidavit Ex. WW1/A. Workman relied upon documents
namely Ex.WW1/1 - Complaint dated 11.03.2013 addressed to Assistant Labour
Page 6 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
Commissioner, Karampura, Delhi; Ex.WW1/2 Demand Notice dated 19.03.2013
addressed to management; Ex. WW1/3 - Speed Post receipt dated 20.03.2013; Ex.
WW1/4 - Speed post envelop; Ex. WW1/5 - Copy of ESI Card of workman and
Mark - A (colly. 2 pages) Form 1B of ESIC and Contribution Card for Currency
period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. Workman in his crossexamination was
confronted with documents Ex.WW1/M1X - Copy of Temporary Identity
Certificate of ESIC of workman; Ex.WW1/M2X (colly. 29 pages) - Pay Register
for the period from April 2010 till March 2011; Ex.WW1/M3X (colly. 32 pages) -
Pay Register for the period from April 2011 till March 2012 except January 2012;
Ex.WW1/M4X (colly. 32 pages) - Pay Register for the period from April 2012 till
January 2013. WE was closed on 15.02.2016 by ld. counsel for workman.
On 26.04.2016 Court passd the following order:
"26.04.2016
Present: Mr. Triyogi Narain ARW who appeared in the prelunch
session only.
None for the management despite repeated calls since
morning till after lunch. Further wait for management is not justified.
ME Closed by court order. Put up on 11.05.2016 for final arguments."
7. ARGUMENTS
I have heard Mr. Narender Kumar, Adv. for workman. None appeared for
management for addressing final arguments. Infact none appeared for management
on 26.04.2016; 11.05.2016; 13.05.2016; 25.05.2016; 07.06.2016; 08.06.2016;
09.07.2016; 05.08.2016; 11.08.2016 and 20.06.2016. Material on judicial file
perused. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of
this case as they arise on the basis of material available on judicial file.
8. My ISSUEWISE findings are as under:
ISSUE No.1:
Whether the workman deliberately left the job and stopped coming to the
Page 7 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
management since 11.02.2013 and failed to join duty despite call back notices
dated 15.02.2013 and 08.03.2013 sent by the management? If so, to what effect?
OPM
ISSUE No.2: As per terms of reference.
(''Whether the services of workman Sh. Ram Bali S/o Late Sh. Ram Kewal Chandra
has been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management; and if so,
what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?")
ISSUE No. 3: Relief
All the issues, being interconnected, are being taken up under a common
discussion.
AT THE OUTSET it is noted management in the WS has pleaded that this
Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint (sic.). It is to be
noted that this is a reference case and issue/dispute as to jurisdiction of this Court
has not been referred to this Court by the appropriate Govt. It is well settled
proposition of law that this Court is bound to confine its adjudication strictly within
the scope of terms of reference and cannot go beyond the terms of reference. Thus,
this Court cannot be said to be having authority to decide the issue as to
jurisdiction of this Court as the same is not within the scope of reference, or, rather,
putting it differently, management herein cannot be permitted to raise the plea
regarding jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute in
question/referred for adjudication. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case law
reported as Raj Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Rangi International Pvt. Ltd.
MANU/DE/2859/2009 has observed as under :
"8. If the respondent/management in the present case had any grievance
about the petitioner having approached the Labour Commissioner at Delhi
and/or about the reference to the Labour Court being made by the
Government of NCT of Delhi or if it was the case of the
respondent/management that the jurisdiction if any was of the Government of
Haryana, the stage for the respondent/management to take the said plea was
at the time of reference or by way of challenge thereto. No such plea was
taken by the respondent/management at that time and which proceeding
before Labour Commissioner and reference to Labour Court at Delhi has
Page 8 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
attained finality. In my view, under Sections 10(4), 11 and 14 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court to whom the dispute had been
referred was not entitled to take a plea that it lacked territorial jurisdiction
or to refuse the adjudication referred to it on that ground.
9. In Workmen Employed by Hindustan Lever Limited v. Hindustan
Lever Limited MANU/SC/0212/1984 the Supreme Court held that Section
10(1) of the Act confers power on the appropriate government to refer an
existing dispute amongst others to, inter alia, the Labour Court for
adjudication; the dispute therefore which can be referred for adjudication
necessarily has to be an industrial dispute which would clothe the
appropriate government with power to make the reference and the Labour
Court to adjudicate it; it will thus be seen that the High Court has
jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that the
government from which reference is sought or which has referred the dispute
was not clothed with the powers to refer the same or lacked the power to
make the reference. The respondent in the present case did not challenge the
authority of the government of NCT of Delhi which could refer the dispute to
the Labour Court within its jurisdiction only, to make such reference.
10. A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in National Engineering
Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0755/1999; AIR2000SC469
has held that an Industrial Tribunal is the creation of a statute and it gets
jurisdiction on the basis of reference, it cannot go into the question of
validity of reference. Similarly in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Om
Prakash Sharma MANU/SC/8173/2006 also it was held that the jurisdiction
of Labour Court emanates from order of reference, it could not have passed
an order going beyond the term of reference and if the Labour Court exceeds
its jurisdiction the order suffers from a jurisdictional error capable of being
corrected by the High Court.
11. Besides the aforesaid, I am otherwise also of the view that the
industrial dispute arises at the place where the employer is exercising
effective control. The state government having jurisdiction over the place
from which the employer exercises effective control would have jurisdiction
to make the reference under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the
present case, the registered office of the respondent company is at Delhi and
prima facie the effective control would be at Delhi. Nothing has been shown
otherwise that there was a separate establishment at Gurgaon; only if a
separate establishment had been proved could the dispute be said to have
arisen at Gurgaon. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Workmen of
Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. v. Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd.
MANU/SC/0237/1967. The Supreme Court again in Bikas Bhushan Ghosh v.
Novartis India Ltd. MANU/SC/7351/2007 has also laid down the test of part
of the cause of action and held that even if a part of cause of action in the
industrial dispute arises within the state, than that state will have jurisdiction
to make a reference despite the fact that other states also have jurisdiction to
make a reference. The petitioner in the present case has spent major time of
his employment with the respondent at Delhi and for this reason also I am of
Page 9 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
the view that the reference was correctly made to the Labour Court at Delhi.
12. Above all, the Industrial Dispute Act is a social welfare legislation.
Today the boundaries between Delhi and Gurgaon have disappeared. No
prejudice has been shown to be caused to the respondent company by
continuation of the proceedings in the Labour Court at Delhi. On the
contrary, if the proceedings which have been underway for long and in
which the respondent has participated without objection, are terminated and
the petitioner directed to approach the authorities at Gurgaon, his sufferance
would be insurmountable."
Also it has to be kept in mind that management herein namely Narender
PressTech Pvt. Ltd. is having its Regd. Office : (UnitI), P.P. 26, 27 & 9/97(V)
Lane No.10, Behind Police Station, Anand Parbat Industrial Estate, New Delhi
110005. THUS, THIS COURT PROCEEDS TO DECIDE THE REFERENCE ON
MERRITS.
HERE admittedly there existed relationship of employer and employee
between the management and the workman. As per workman the management on
10.02.2013 terminated the services of workman without any prior intimation and
notice. But as per management the workman by his own will/deliberately left the
job without giving any prior information to the management and is absent since
11.02.2013 and, further, that management had sent two call letters dated
15.02.2013 and 08.03.2013 to the workman asking him to rejoin his duties but the
workman did not turn up. Moneyorder allegedly sent to workman on 01.03.2013
for the remaining earned wages of the workman was also received back as
unserved by the management.
Workman in his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A deposed as under :
"3. यह हह कक मम शपथकररर शपथ बयरन कररर हह ह कक महससर नररनदर पहस टरक पर लल., पप.पप. 26, गलप नह.
10, इणडसटट पयल एररयर, आननद परर र, नई कदलप5 कक एक शरखर महससर नररनदर पहस टरक पर लल., पलरट नह.
65, सरकटर3, मरनरसर. गगगडगरहर, हररयरणर122005 मम हह कययकक मम कफटर थर जब भप जररर पडरप थप, मगझर
मरललक मरनरसर फहकटट प मम लर जररर थर, शरम कक मम आननद परर र फहकटट प मम लर आरर थर।
4. यह हह कक मम शपथकररर शपथ बयरन कररर हह ह कक मरललक मगझर मरनरसर कमपनप मम करम करनर कर ललए
भरजनर लगर रक मम मरललकय सर कहर कक आनर जरनर मर समय (टरईम) बबररद हकरर हह। आप ककई ओरर टरईम नहह
Page 10 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016
Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16
दररर हह। मरललकय नर कहर कक रगमहम रक रररन आननद परर र फहकटट प सर कमलरगर रक ममनर मरललकय सर कहर कक अगर
मगझर मरनरसर भरजनर हह रक मररर सथरनरनरहररण पत दर दक, मम मरनरसर चलर जरउह गर।
5. यह हह कक मम शपथकररर शपथ बयरन कररर हह ह कक मरललक मगझसर नरररज हक गए। कबनर ककसप पपरर
सपचनर र नककटस कर कदनरहक 10022013 कक ननकरप सर कनकरल कदए। मररर मरह जनररप 2013 कर कमरयर
हह आ रररन भप नहह कदए।
6. यह हह कक मम शपथकररर शपथ बयरन कररर हह ह कक मम लगरररर कमपनप मम जररर रहर परनरग मरललकय
नर करम पर नहह ललयर, न हप कमरयर हह आ रररन कदयर। ममनर ननकरप सर कनकरलनर कक एक कशकरयर यपकनयन
कर मरधयम सर कदनरहक 11032013 कक सहरयक शमरयगक महकदय, कमर पगरर. नई कदलप15 कक दप। शम
कनरपकक महकदय मगझर करम पर लगररनर कमपनप मम गए। शम कनरपकक कर कहनर पर भप मरललकय नर मगझर करम
पर रखनर और कमरयर रररन दरनर सर इहकरर कर कदयर। शम कनरपकक महकदय मरललकय कक नककटस दरकर
कदनरहक 19032013 र 02042013 एरमम 12042013 कक शम करयररलय मम बगलरयर परनरग मरललक
उपससथर नहह हह ए।"
Workman in his crossexamination deposed as under :
"......Q. Kindly tell where were you working in the year 2004?
Ans. In the year 2004, I was not employed anywhere and I remained at home.
I so remained at home since July 2003 and I started to work since
02.03.2005 with the present management. ......................................................
.........................................................................................................................
Q. It is put to you that you stopped reporting to the duty w.e.f. 11.02.2013 at Manesar unit of management. What have you to say? Ans. It is correct that I stopped reporting for duty w.e.f. 11.02.2013. (Vol. It was so because I was recruited and appointed in Delhi and I used to be sent for duty seldom and Manesar Unit of the management.) It is wrong to suggest that I was appointed in the Manesar Unit of the management and I used to report for duty daily at the Manesar Unit. Q. It is put to you that when you stopped reporting the duty at Manesar Unit letters dated 15.02.2013 (at Delhi address only) and 08.03.2013 (both at your Delhi address as well as your village address) were sent to you through Regd. Post asking you to rejoin your duty. What have you to say? Ans. I did not receive any letter.
It is correct that on 15.02.2013 I was residing at House no. 148, Gali No.2, Prem Nagar, Nangloi, New Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that I did receive the abovesaid letters and I deliberately did not report for duty to the management.
Q. It is put to you that management sent a money order at your Delhi address on 01.03.2013 for a sum of Rs.2029/ on account of his unpaid wages for the last month. What have you to say?
Page 11 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016 Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16 Ans. I did not receive any money order. Nor the said money order was tendered to me................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... Q. It is put to you when the management offered me to join the duty at Manesar unit, I voluntarily refused to join the duty. What have you to say? Ans. It is correct to so suggest..................................................................... .......................................................................................................................... It is correct that my signatures are present on Ex.WW1/M2X (colly. 29 pages) (OSR) at points from A to L. It is correct that my signatures are present on Ex.WW1/M3X (colly. 32 pages) (OSR) at points from A1 to I1. It is correct that my signatures are present on Ex.WW1/M4X (colly. 32 pages) (OSR) at points from A2 to H2."
Here consistently stand of the workman is that workman was appointed at Delhi Unit of Management, workman was regularly working at the Delhi Unit of Management and the services of workman were also terminated on 10.02.2013 at Delhi Unit of Management on account of workman insisting on issuance of transfer letter to workman if the management wants to send the workman at its Unit at Manesar.
WHAT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE IS THAT Management has led no evidence is this case. Infact management started absenting from appearance before the Court after last appearance of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Adv. for management on 02.04.2016. None appeared for management on 26.04.2016 and, hence, after lunch ME was closed by Court order. None appeared for management even on 11.05.2016; 13.05.2016; 25.05.2016; 07.06.2016; 08.06.2016; 09.07.2016; 05.08.2016; 11.08.2016 and 20.08.2016, on which date final arguments addressed by ld. counsel for workman were heard and case was adjourned for 29.08.2016 for clarifications, if any/arguments/award. Mere filing of WS does not serve any purpose unless and until the stand taken in WS is also established on judicial file by leading cogent and convincing evidence and affording an opportunity to the workman to test the veracity of the same in the course of crossexamination of witness of the management examined while leading such evidence.
Workman herein has been deprived of his valuable right to test the veracity Page 12 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016 Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16 of the stand of the management as pleaded in WS. It is not the case here that management in the course of crossexamination of workman has been able to establish/prove on judicial file the entire case as pleaded by management in the WS. Admissions on the part of workman regarding his signatures on Ex. WW 1/M2X (colly. 29 pages) at points A to L; Ex. WW1/M3X (colly. 32 pages) at points from A1 to I1 and Ex. WW1/M4X (colly. 32 pages) at points from A2 to H2 have to be read in the light of denial by the workman to suggestions given in his crossexamination regarding workman being appointed/working/getting salary at/from the Manesar Unit of management. When so understood, it can be said that management has failed to establish its stand as pleaded in WS that workman was appointed at Manesar Unit, reporting daily for work at Manesar Unit or getting salary at Manesar Unit inasmuch as management has lead no evidence as already observed. Workman has been deprived of his right to test the veracity of the case as pleaded by management in the WS. Insisting upon the workman to work at a place other than the place of his appointment/usual employment otherwise than in terms of service conditions of workman and/or without issuing any transfer letter may amount to termination/retrenchment of service of workman by the management from the place where workman was appointed or where he was usually employed by the management. And if in such circumstances workman stopped reporting for duty it cannot be said that workman on his own free will and consent/deliberately absented from his services or voluntarily abandoned his services with the management. Offer given to workman to join service at Manesar served no purpose in the facts and circumstances of this case. As management has lead no evidence at all and, also, management has not been able to establish/prove the entire case as pleaded by management in the WS in the course of cross examination of workman, it can be said that in away case of workman has gone unrebutted and workman has been able to prove the case as pleaded by workman in the statement of claim. THUS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT MANAGEMENT Page 13 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016 Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16 TERMINATED THE SERVICES OF WORKMAN ILLEGALLY IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25F OF THE INSUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947.
NOW MERELY BECAUSE management terminated the services of workman illegally / unjustifiably in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not mean that workman is automatically entitled to be reinstated in service with management with full back wages. Whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service or not depends on the facts and circumstances of this case at the discretion of this Court keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of issues which have already come into existence between the parties, order for reinstatement of workman in service with the management may not result in cordial industrial relations between the workman and the management. Hence, reinstatement is declined.
In the case in hand workman has pleaded that workman searched very much for the job but could not get any satisfactory job and workman wants to join back his duties with the management with all legal facilities and full back wages. Except the bald averments / depositions nothing has been brought on record by the workman to show that he made serious sincere efforts for getting job after termination of his services by the management. Also it is not the case here that workman did not get any job but his case is that he could not get any satisfactory job. Keeping in view normal job / work opportunities for a 'Fitter' in a metropolitan city like Delhi, it is hard to believe that workman has not been able to earn anything since the date of termination of his services by the management. Hence, workman is not entitled to full back wages.
In my considered opinion, in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, grant of lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.85,000/ (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Only) to the workman for illegal / unjustified termination of his Page 14 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016 Ram Bali Vs. M/s. Narendra Press Tech Pvt. Ltd. ID No. 2438/16 services by the management and for consequences thereof / back wages would meet the ends of justice. If this amount of Rs.85,000/ (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Only) is not paid to workman within one month of award coming into force management shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of the award till its payment. A sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) is also awarded to workman as costs of litigation payable by the management.
9. Reference is answered accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to Office of the concerned Deputy Labour Commissioner for further necessary action.
10. File be consigned to Record Room after completing due formalities.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.08.2016 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLCXI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi* Page 15 of 15 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/29.08.2016