Delhi District Court
Smt. Soma Paul W/O Sh. Som Nath vs (Ii) M/S Salora International (P) Ltd on 4 March, 2014
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
BEFORE SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL: POLC - XI:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
REFERENCE CASE (ID) No. 1245/04
UNIQUE CASE ID No. 02402C0007761996
In the matter of:
Smt. Soma Paul W/o Sh. Som Nath,
R/o 18/322, DDA Quarters, Ambedkar Nagar,
Dakshinpuri Sector5, New Delhi.
Through: Sh. R. S. Chauhan, Authorised Representative / General Secretary,
Janta Labour Union Delhi
10925, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005
......... Workman
V/s.
(I) M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd.
D - 13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - II,
New Delhi 110020
(II) M/s Salora International (P) Ltd.
D - 13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - II,
New Delhi 110020
..........Management
Date of Institution : 05.10.1996
Date of reserving for award : 20.02.2014
Date of award : 04.03.2014
AWARD
1. TERMS OF REFERENCE
Vide Order No. F.24(3479)/96Lab./4128287 dated 29.08.1996 the Secretary
(Labour), Government of N.C.T. of Delhi made the following reference under
section 10 (1) (c) and section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
adjudication by this Court:
Page 1 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
"Whether the services of Shrimati Soma Paul have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief
is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. CASE OF WORKMAN AS PLEADED IN STATEMENTOFCLAIM
(i) Workman was appointed on 09.12.1984 as 'Wire Girl' and her last drawn
salary was Rs.994/ per month. Workman worked with hard labour and
honestly and did not give any opportunity to the management to have any
complaint against her.
(ii) Management was violating the laws absolutely / openly. On the demand
of the workman for legal facilities, management got annoyed and terminated
the services of workman on 20.6.1992. Workman alongwith other coworkmen
had sent a demand notice dated 16.03.1991 demanding the legal facilities; on
account of which management got annoyed and started to plan to remove the
workman from services and lastly, by creating a drama, on 18.06.1992
management gave an order to workman to effect that workman has been
transferred to Kashipur, UP Unit despite the fact that at the time of joining the
services with the management, management did not put any such condition that
workman may have to go outside Delhi for service. This was an excuse only
for illegally removing the workman from the services.
(iii) Workman had filed a civil suit for stopping her illegal transfer to
Kashipur, UP but the ld. Civil Court returned the said suit by saying that matter
regarding wrongful transfer pertains to jurisdiction of Labour Court and
workman should approach the Labour Court. Since 20.06.1992 management
kept on calling the workman at Darya Ganj Godown Factory and assuring to
Page 2 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
take the workman back into services by saying that management will settle the
matter with workman after workman withdraws the above said case in the Civil
Court. Workman continuously visited the management for demanding the
work but after the decision of Civil Court on 15.01.1994 management told the
workman that workman need not to visit the factory and management will not
take the workman back into service.
(iv) At the time of appointment of the workman and during her service
period, management had forcibly taken the signatures of the workman on
certain plain papers, vouchers, forms, cards, etc. etc.; some of which were
having revenue stamp affixed thereon, while the others were not having revenue
stamp affixed thereon. Workman signed the said documents under the
compulsion of service.
(v) On 30.06.2002 workman raised a demand, by telling about her financial
crisis, for earned salary from 01.06.1992 to 30.06.1992 but on this demand
being raised by workman, management illegally removed the workman from
the services. At the time of removing the workman from the services neither
the workman was charged with any charges nor any money payment was made.
Further, the management at the time of removing of workman from service did
not pay 'notice pay', service compensation etc. etc. nor conducted any enquiry.
(vi) The removal of the workman from services of management is illegal,
unjustifiable, against the principles of natural justice, with a retaliatory feeling
and inspired by malafides which is in violation of provisions of Section 25 F &
25 G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(vii) The management was attempting to criminally intimidate the workman
Page 3 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
and to cause the workman to be beaten. Also management was trying to
forcibly get the matter settled which is illegal, unjustified and antisocial.
With these averments, workman prayed for passing an award, in her
favour and against the management, directing the management to take the
workman back into service with full back wages.
3. CASE AS PLEADED BY MANAGEMENT IN WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.
At the outset management pleaded that M/s. Electronics Consortium (P)
Ltd. and M/s. Salora International Ltd. are the same company. As per
management, name of the company in the beginning was M/s Electronics
Consortium (P) Ltd. which afterwards became M/s Electronics Consortium
Ltd.; subsequently, it became M/s E. C. P. Ltd. and finally name of the
company was changed to M/s Salora International Ltd.
In its written statement the management admitted the averments made
by workman regarding her date of appointment, post and last drawn salary.
However, as per management, workman willfully disobeyed the order,
Ex.WW1/M1 (dated 18.06.1992) of the management through which workman
was transferred to Kashipur unit of the company. Further, as per management,
terms of appointment letter as well as certified standing orders which are
statutorily applicable and binding on workman provide for transfer of the
workman outside Delhi and transfer of the workman to Kashipur, UP factory of
the management was / is legal and valid. Management denied the averment that
management was violating the laws or that management was angry and
planning to remove the workman. As per management, workman had been
Page 4 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
transferred to Kashipur, UP factory w.e.f. 20.06.1992 and, therefore, there was
no question of workman being called at Darya Ganj factory or being assured of
to be taken on duty at Darya Ganj factory. As alleged, after transfer of
workman to Kashipur, workman had no right left to be taken on duty in any
factory of the management at Delhi / New Delhi. Further, workman's signatures
were never taken on plain papers, vouchers, etc. Management denied the
averments of the workman regarding workman having been removed from
service on 30.06.1992. As per management, workman was dismissed w.e.f.
31.05.1995 vide letter dated 30.05.1995 after holding proper and valid domestic
enquiry into the charges of chargesheet Ex.WW1/M2, dated 07.09.1994 in
which charges were found to have been proved against workman. As alleged,
Sh. Arun Lakhotia, BJ92, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi was appointed as enquiry
officer and enquiry officer gave workman various dates to appear in the
enquiry but workman willfully absented from enquiry and enquiry officer had
to proceed exparte against workman. Also, as alleged, before dismissal of
workman notice dated 22.04.1995 was issued to workman to showcause
against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service and alongwith the
said notice copies of enquiry report and enquiry proceedings were also sent to
workman. As per management, no 'noticepay' or compensation was payable to
workman on her dismissal from services w.e.f. 31.05.1995 as Section 25F and
25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted in this case. Net sum
of Rs.577.55 is due to workman towards wage of June upto 18.09.1992 and Rs.
191.65 is due to her towards encashment of 3 days of due earned leaves which
workman did not take.
Page 5 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
4. REJOINDER
In the rejoinder, workman denied the case as pleaded by management in
its WS and reaffirmed the case as pleaded in the statementofclaim.
5. ISSUES
On 07.07.1999, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether fair and proper enquiry has not been held?
(ii) As per terms of reference.
(iii) Relief.
Vide order dated 24.08.2000 issue no.1 was treated as preliminary issue.
6. EVIDENCE & ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE.
Workman appeared in witness box as WW1 Smt. Soma Paul. Her
evidence was closed on 24.08.2000 on the statement of Sh. R. S. Chauhan AR /
Adv. Management examined MW1 Sh. Arun Lakhotia and ME was closed on
26.04.2001 on the statement of Mr. R. S. Lakhotia, AR. Vide order dated
13.11.2002 it was held that no fair and proper enquiry had been conducted and
the issue was decided against the management and in favour of workman.
7. EVIDENCE BEFORE COURT ON CHARGES AGAINST
WORKMAN AND ORDER OF COURT.
Vide order dated 27.05.2003 case was adjourned for management's
evidence on the charges. Management examined MW2 Mr. Raghunath Singh
and closed the evidence on 15.01.2004 on the statement of Mr. R. S. Lakhotia,
AR. Workman filed her affidavit in WE. Vide order dated 20.11.2007 Court
passed the following order :
Page 6 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
"ID no. 1245/04
20.11.2007
Present: Workman in person with AR.
Sh. S. S. Rawat for the management.
An application has been moved on behalf of the
management wherein it has been submitted that the management
does not want to further crossexamine the workmen and the
management want to adopt the earlier crossexamination of the
workman dt. 24.08.2000.
Heard. Submission of the management heard.
Since the management does not want to further
crossexamine the workman, put up on 28.11.2007 for final
arguments."
On 18.11.2009, ld. predecessor of this Court passed an award holding as under:
"16. Hence the order of the Management to dismiss / terminate the
workman was illegal and non est in the eyes of law. Now the position
of the order of 'dismissal / termination" is that it was never passed.
The workman is hence held entitled to be continuing her services
without any break therein. She is further held entitled to receive all
the consequential benefits.
17. As an illegal order of the Management kept the workman
devoid of his benefits for about 17 long years, this court allows an
interest @ 6% P.A. On all the outstanding money / wages / salary /
benefits etc. This interest will start accruing from the date the money
became due to the workman till the date of its realization....."
8. ORDER OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT
Management challenged the order dated 13.11.2002 and award dated
18.11.2009 in W. P. (C) No. 7771/2010 and vide order dated 18.02.2013 Hon'ble
Delhi High Court held as under:
"9. Thus, it has been categorically laid down that after the
enquiry issue is decided against the management, the evidence is
required to be independently considered by the Trial Court in case
the management seeks leave to adduce evidence at the appropriate
time which has been done in the present case, and only thereafter a
Page 7 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
finding can be arrived at with regard to the misconduct. During the
enquiry of misconduct by the Trial Court it is bound to consider any
fresh material that is also placed on record dehors the disciplinary
enquiry material.
10. In view of the legal position not having been adhered to by
the learned Trial Court, the impugned award dated 18th November,
2009 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial
Court to decide the matter afresh in light of the aforesaid legal
position. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial
Court on 11th March, 2013.
11. Petition and application are disposed of. Trial Court record
be sent back. The amount of Rs.103875/ deposited by the Petitioner,
which is lying in the FDR, in this Court shall be subject to the final
outcome of the matter before the learned Trial Court and the learned
Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass necessary directions in this
regard".
9. ORDER OF HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE DELHI
HIGH COURT
Workman challenged the order dated 18.02.2013 in L. P. A. No. 365/13
wherein on 22.11.2013, Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed the
following order:
"Counsel for the appellant submitted that the only purpose of filing
this appeal against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
by which the matter has been remanded back to the Industrial
Adjudicator to decide it afresh in the light of the legal position stated
in the judgment was that the appellant is having an apprehension
that after remand the respondent? management shall try to delay the
matter by seeking adjournments for adducing additional evidence. Counsel for the respondent submitted that evidence has already been led not only on behalf of the management but also by the appellant workman and no further evidence is to be adduced by the management and both the parties would be addressing their respective submissions before the Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the evidence already adduced.
Page 8 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
In view of the aforesaid, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
Today counsel for the appellant had also submitted that respondent management has not even complied with the order passed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the respondent very fairly submitted that necessary payment shall be released in favour of the appellant within one month."
10. ARGUMENTS I have heard Sh. R. S. Chauhan. AR for the workman and Sh. Anurag Lakhotia, Adv. for management. Material on judicial file carefully perused. Ld. counsel for the management relied upon case law reported as (i) Dr. Anil Bajaj Vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research & Anr. (2002) LLR 308 (SC); (ii) Agra Electric Supply Company Ltd. Vs. Alladin & others 1969 II LLJ 540 (SC); (iii) M/s. Delhi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court X and Anr., 2014 LLR 126; (iv) Inder Dev Yadav Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. 2002 LLR 261 (Delhi High Court); (v) Shri Gian Chand Vs. Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration 1994 LLR 319 (Delhi High Court Division Bench); (vi) M/s. Salora International Limited Vs. POLCX & Anr. W.P. (Civil) No.2817/2006 Judgment dated 28/09/2007 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sistani, Judge Hon'ble Delhi High Court; (vii) Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s. Globe Detective Agency (P) Ltd. & Ors. 2007 LLR 390 (Delhi High Court); (viii) Mukesh Khanna Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & Anr. 2000 LLR 168 (Punjab & Haryana HC); (ix) Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Rajpal (2006) LLR 1179 (Delhi High Court); (x) Tej Pal Vs. Gopal Narain & Anr. 2006 LLR 1142 (Delhi Page 9 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04 High Court); (xi) General Marketing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors. 2000 LLR 793 (Delhi High Court); (xii) Syndicate Bank Vs. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr. 2000 LLR 689 (SC); (xiii) Management of Erinkadu Estate, Karumbalam, Nilgiris District Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Coimbatore & Ors. 2001 LLR 299 (Madras High Court); (xiv) U.P. Singh Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2001 LLR 708 (Delhi High Court Division Bench); (xv) Management of M/s. Hotel Samrat Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors. 2007 LLR 386; (xvi) M/s. Capital Ltd. Vs. Eighth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors. (2007) LLR 191 (Calcutta HC); (xvii) Tamil Nadu National Mine Workers Union and Anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. and Anr. 2004 LLR 435 (Madras HC); (xviii) L. K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr. 2006 (108) FLR 1101; (ix) Kishan Lal & Sons Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2007 LLR 976 (Delhi HC) and (xx) U.P. State Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Udai Narain Pandey 2006 LLR 214 (SC). Case laws perused with utmost regards.
11. My ISSUEWISE findings are as under: ISSUE No.1:
Whether fair and proper enquiry has not been held? OPM This issue has already been decided vide order dated 13.11.2002. ISSUE No.2: As per terms of reference.
("Whether the services of Shrimati Soma Paul have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?") Workman in the statementofclaim has pleaded that management was violating the law absolutely / openly and on demand of workman for legal facilities Page 10 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04 management got annoyed and terminated the services of workman on 20.06.1992. Further, workman has pleaded that workman alongwith other co workmen had sent a demand notice dated 16.03.1991 demanding legal facilities;
on account of which management got annoyed and started to plan to remove the workman from services and lastly, by creating a drama, on 18.06.1992 management gave an order (Ex.WW1/M1) to workman to the effect that workman has been transferred to Kashipur, UP unit despite the fact that at the time of joining the services with management, management did not put any such condition that workman may have to go outside Delhi for service. As per workman, her transfer to Kashipur was an excuse only for illegally removing the workman from services. Workman made similar pleadings in the statement ofclaim filed before the Conciliation Officer.
On the other hand case as pleaded by management is that orders were issued / given to workman due to exigency of work transferring her to Kashipur (UP) factory of management on 18.06.1992 and workman was to report there by 27.06.1992. Management in the reply filed before Conciliation Officer took the stand that services of workman were not terminated and workman was simply transferred to Kashipur, UP vide letter dated 18.06.1992. Management further pleaded in the reply that workman can still join the services at Kashipur as her services are still in continuance. It is in this background, abovesaid reference has been made to the Court. The "Reference" is as regards the illegality and / or unjustifiability of termination of services of workman by the management and stand of the management before the Conciliation Officer was that services of workman were not terminated and she was simply transferred to Kashipur (U. P.) and workman could still join at Kashipur (U. P.). As per management, Page 11 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04 as pleaded before this Court, in fact, services of workman were terminated by way of her dismissal w.e.f. 31.05.1995 after conducting enquiry into the chargesheet Ex.WW1/M2 (dated 07.09.1994). Date of reference order is 29.08.1996 but, as the facts suggest, pleadings regarding the enquiry on the chargesheet Ex.WW1/M1 (dated 07.09.1994) and consequent dismissal of workman w.e.f. 31.05.1995 were not there before the Conciliation Officer. Workman even in the statementofclaim filed before the Court, obviously after 29.08.1996, did not make necessary pleadings about the enquiry on the chargesheet and workman's consequent dismissal from the services of management. Workman WW1 Smt. Soma Paul in her cross - examination deposed that, ".....I was issued chargesheet Ex.WW1/M2 and my reply is Ex.WW1/M3. I was informed about the enquiry vide letter Ex.WW1/M4....". Workman even replied the show cause notice dated 22.04.1995 regarding proposed punishment of dismissal from service vide reply dated 22.05.1995. Still workman in the statementofclaim filed before the Court maintained absolute silence about the enquiry proceedings and claim of workman is that her services were terminated on 20.06.1992 with effect from which date workman was transferred to Kashipur vide transfer order Ex.WW1/M1.
It is a settled proposition of law that this Court as a Labour Court must confine its adjudication to dispute referred to it and matters incidental thereto and Labour Court is not free to enlarge the scope of dispute. In view of pleadings, particularly of the workman, before the Conciliation Officer and consequent reference made to the Court for adjudication, the issue as regards the illegality / unjustifiability of the order of transfer of workman to Kashipur Page 12 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04 unit can be said to be incidental to main / specific terms of reference in as much as workman is pleading that her services in fact have been terminated vide this transfer order, or alternately, that workman has been transferred, in fact, to terminate her services. Without commenting on the transfer, in the facts and circumstances of this case, reference cannot be answered. Thus, such an issue is incidental to the reference. Also, it has been observed in the case law reported as The Jaipur Udyog Ltd. V/s. The Cement Works Karamchari Sangh, Sahu Nagar, AIR 1972 SC 1352 that scope of reference has to be gathered from the circumstances preceding the Government Order.
NOW, this Court has to see whether management had the power to transfer the workman to Kashipur unit. Before an employee / workman can be transferred, there has to be an express condition of employment contract conferring on the employer the right to transfer such employee / workman. [Management of Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. V/s Jasod Singh 2013 LLR 118 relied].
In this regard management relied upon appointment letter Mark - X in the course of cross - examination of workman. In this regard, in her cross - examination, workman WW1 Smt. Soma Paul deposed that, "............. MarkX is not signed by me. I was issued appointment letter. I can produce the same. Again said I was not issued any appointment letter. I did not make any complaint that I have not been issued any appointment letter...........". Also, workman in the reply Ex.WW1/M3, submitted by her to the chargesheet Ex.WW1/M2, alleged that management got prepared appointment letters with "Jalsaji" and fraudulently got the same signed which is illegal. What is important to note is that MW2 Mr. Raghunath Singh did not rely upon / prove Page 13 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04 the appointment letter Mark - X relied upon by management in the course of cross - examination of workman. MW2 Mr. Raghunath Singh in his cross - examination further deposed that, "........ signature of workman were not obtained in my presence in the appointment letter.....". Thus, management can be said to have failed to establish that workman was appointed vide appointment letter Mark - X. To prove that management was having the power to transfer the workman, management relied upon Certified Standing Orders Ex.MW2/1 and Ex.MW2/2. Clause 5 (m) of the Certified Standing Orders of the management reads as follows: "(m) TRANSFERS: A workman may be transferred according to exigencies of work from one shop/department to another or from one station to another or from one establishment to another or to any sister concern, however, wages, grade continuity of service and other conditions of service of the workman shall be not adversely affected by such transfer. Provided where the transfer involves moving from one state to another the workman shall be given a period of at least one week to join the transferred station and shall be paid travelling allowance including the transport charges and fifty per cent thereof to meet the incidental charges." These Standing Orders dated 19.07.1989 came into force after the appointment of workman in the year 1984 but as per case law reported as Agra Electric Supply Co. V/s Alladin (supra) relied upon by ld. counsel for management the Standing Orders as they emerge after certification are intended to be binding on all workmen in the employment of the establishment at the date when they came into force and those employed thereafter. The certified standing orders when come into force will be binding to the existing as well as those employees who are appointed subsequently. (Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. Co. V/s Addl.
Page 14 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court (1990) 76 FJR 139 (AP) relied). Thus, in terms of the provisions of certified Standing Orders of the management, management has the authority to transfer the workman to any station outside Delhi. As per case law General Marketing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s Presiding Officer & Ors. (supra) relied upon by ld. counsel for management as workman could be transferred to any state outside Delhi, management has the right to transfer the workman to a new concern started by it subsequent to the date of appointment of the workman.
NOW it is for the workman to establish on record that she was transferred to Kashipur malafidely or by extraneous considerations. Workman is trying to do this by pleading that management was violating the law and on demand being raised by workman regarding legal facilities, management got annoyed and terminated her services on 20.06.1992. In this regard workman is also referring to demand notice dated 16.03.1991 allegedly sent by workman alongwith coworkmen to the management. Above stand of the workman has remained totally unsubstantiated. The above averments are vague. The alleged demand notice dated 16.03.1991 has not even been brought on record. Workman has not even pleaded as to which provisions of law were being violated by management and for which legal facilities workman had raised the demand. No coworker has been examined by workman to prove / establish above stand on judicial file. In the absence of adequate evidence in support of abovesaid stand / averments of workman, it is not possible to attribute malafides / extraneous considerations on the part of management in transferring the workman to Kashipur. Further, there is no crossexamination Page 15 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04 of MW2 Mr. Raghunath Singh on the point of malafides / extraneous considerations, while transferring the workman to Kashipur. Malafides / extraneous consideration while transferring a workman when management as power to transfer a workman, are not to be assumed / presumed but such malafides / extraneous considerations have to be pleaded and proved by workman on judicial file. Workman in this case has failed to do so.
In view of above detailed discussion, it is observed that services of the workman were not terminated by management in terms of workman's pleadings contained in the statementofclaim filed before this Court or before the Conciliation Officer but workman was lawfully transferred only to Kashipur vide transfer letter / order (Ex.WW1/M1) dated 18.06.1992. It is pertinent to note that WW1 Smt. Soma Paul in her cross - examination deposed that, ".....I received transfer letter Ex.WW1/M1 to Kashipur. I did not go to Kashipur.......". Management in reply, Ex.WW1/M6 submitted before the Conciliation Officer, to the statementofclaim Ex.WW1/M5 filed by workman before Conciliation Officer pleaded that workman's services with the management are still continuing and workman could join the duties with management at Kashipur. When admittedly workman did not join / report at transferred place, workman can be taken to have abandoned her services. In view of above reply of management dated 12.07.1994 during the conciliation proceedings letter of management dated 07.07.1992 deeming the workman to have abandoned her services can be taken to have been withdrawn. Issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE No.3: Relief.
Page 16 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI
Smt. Soma Paul Vs. M/s Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd. & Anr. ID No. 1245/04
In view of my findings / observations on issue no.2, workman is held to be entitled to no relief.
12. Reference stands answered accordingly.
13. Parties to bear their own costs.
14. In view of my above findings amount of Rs.1,03,875/ deposited by the management herein lying in the FDR as per para. no. 11 of the order dated 18.02.2013 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is liable to be returned to the management.
15. A copy of the award be sent to the concerned Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner for further necessary action.
16. File be consigned to Record Room after completing due formalities.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03.2014
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
POLCXI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 17 to 17 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO-LC- XI: KKD: DELHI