Delhi District Court
Sh.Ramesh Chand vs (1) M/S Superior Craft Pvt.Ltd on 6 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Ref. No. : F.24 (2879)/04/Lab./283842
Dated : 09.02.2005
I.D.No. : 249/05
Unique I.D.No. 02402C0239372005
Sh.Ramesh Chand, S/o Sh. Jagmohan Prasad,.
C/o Kapra Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,
L603, Mangolpuri, New Delhi110083. .................Workman
Versus
(1) M/s Superior Craft Pvt.Ltd.,
D19, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi,
New Delhi.
(2) M/s Superior Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
C1, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi,
New Delhi. .............Managements
Date of Institution of the case : 07.03.2005
Date on which reserved for Award : 06.10.2012
Date on which Award is passed : 06.10.2012
A W A R D
The workman Sh.Ramesh Chand, raised an industrial
dispute regarding the termination of his services by the managements
I.D No. 249/05 Page 1 out of 13
of M/s Superior Craft Pvt. Ltd.. The appropriate Government on
being satisfied regarding the existence of Industrial Dispute between
the parties, made a reference for adjudication. The said reference is
as under:
"Whether the services of Sh. Ramesh Chand, S/o
Sh. Jagmohan Prasad, have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what sum of money as
monetary relief along with consequential
benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt.
Notifications and to what other relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
Thereafter, notice was issued to the workman. Statement of
claim was filed by the workman. It is stated by the workman in his
statement of claim that the workman had been working with the
management as tailor w.e.f. 02.03.2003 on the last drawn salary of
Rs. 3,208/ per month; that he was having a clean service record and
had given no chance of complaint to the management regarding the
performance of his duties; that the management had taken the
I.D No. 249/05 Page 2 out of 13
signature of the workman on blank appointment letter at the time of
his appointment; that the management had neither given the copy of
the same to the workman nor given him the opportunity to read it and
there is apprehension that management can use this against the
workman; that the management had taken the signatures and thumb
impressions of the workman on various blank papers and blank
vouchers at the time of his appointment as also during his service
period and there is apprehension that management can use these
documents against the workman; that The Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable on the management and the
service condition of the workman are regularized vide Model
Standing Orders; that the main work of the management is
manufacturing of readymade garments and for which the management
had opened various factories apart from management nos. 1 and 2
where more than 1000 employees were working; that the work
performed in these factories is dependent on each other hence all
these factories are a single organization under I.D. Act; that the
management was not maintaining the service record of the workman
from the date of appointment; that for this reason the workman
including most of the employees of the management became the
I.D No. 249/05 Page 3 out of 13
members of the union; that the union had raised a dispute regarding
date of appointment before the conciliation officer, upon failure
which was referred for adjudication in a court of law; that the
management was pressurizing the workman to withdraw his case of
date of appointment; that upon refusal for the same, the management
had terminated the services of the workman on 05.07.2004 without
any notice, reason, displaying any seniority list and prior permission
of the Government despite the workman having worked for more than
240 days in each calender year with the management, which action of
the management is illegal and unjustified; that the management had
terminated the services of the workman during conciliation
proceedings but did not offer one month's salary to him nor sent it to
his residence nor made any application before the conciliation officer
in this regard; that if the termination of the services of the workman
does not come under the definition of retrenchment, then the
termination of the services of the workman without any notice,
reason and without any opportunity of being heard and to put his
defence is illegal and unjustified and which is not the part and parcel
of the service condition between them; that the termination of the
services of the workman without any notice, reason, opportunity of
I.D No. 249/05 Page 4 out of 13
being heard, change in service condition is illegal; that the workman
had approached the labour department for his reinstatement in service
but the management did not cooperate with the labour department and
despite the asking of the officers of the labour department did not take
back the workman on duty; that upon this the workman raised a
dispute before the conciliation officer; that despite asking/direction of
Sh. S.K.Dahiya, conciliation officer, the management did not take
back the workman on duty, hence the present reference is before this
Hon'ble Court; that the management was not maintaining any
seniority list of the workmen working with it; that the employees
junior to the workman were working with the management at the time
of termination of his services by the management; that the work
performed by the workman is still existing with the management and
the same is being done by the juniors to the workman as also with
new hands; that the workman is unemployed since the date of his
illegal termination. Hence, the workman has claimed reinstatement
with full back wages, continuity of his services and all consequential
benefits.
Notice of filing of the statement of claim was sent to the
management who had appeared and contested the claim by filing its
I.D No. 249/05 Page 5 out of 13
written statement, which was later on amended vide the relevant order
passed in this regard, on record, on moving of an appropriate
application by the management in this regard, on record. In the
amended written statement filed by the management it has taken the
preliminary objections that the workman had worked in M/s Superior
Crafts, C1, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, New Delhi110041 and not in
M/s Superior Crafts Pvt. Ltd., which was not even in existence during
the period in question; that M/s Superior Crafts Pvt. Ltd. impleaded as
Superior Crafts is the necessary and proper party; that the statement
of claim is suffering from misjoinder and non joinder of the parties
thereby rendering this frivolous statement of claim liable for out right
rejection; that the petitioner was probationer who had not even
completed 240 days and his services had been dispensed with in
accordance with law of land qua probation; that the respondent
establishment has been closed w.e.f. 17.12.2008 and all the employees who were affected by the said closure have been paid their full and final dues. On merits, it is stated that the establishment C1 had come in operation on 14.07.2003; that the establishment was not even existing during the period which allegedly have been maliciously claimed by the workman as his date of joining; that the I.D No. 249/05 Page 6 out of 13 establishment is not operating from C1 as the unit had been shifted to D12 w.e.f. 16.08.2004; that the petitioner was appointed on 04.11.2003 and dispensed on 04.07.2004 due to unsatisfactory performance; that it is denied that the management had taken the signatures and thumb impressions of the workman on blank appointment letter/blank papers/blank vouchers/any other documents; that the petitioner was duly issued the appointment letter, which he willfully accepted after reading the contents of the same; that the management of M/s Superior Crafts where the petitioner was employed with is duly compliant with the Industrial Employment Standing Order, 1946; that neither the answering management nor any sister concern is employing 1000 workmen; that each one of them is separate legal entity; that it is denied that the workmen of the establishment are the members of the union; that the management is duly contesting the said case in regard to the date of appointment and has a good case on merit since it has the requisite sanction of the legal and valid documentary evidence; that it is denied that the management had pressurized the workman to withdraw the said dispute; that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days; that the petitioner was a probationer and his service had been judiciously I.D No. 249/05 Page 7 out of 13 dispensed with on account of his unsatisfactory performance; that the action of the respondent is absolutely legal and no other exercise i.e. seeking permission as alleged or offering notice pay was required before dispensing with the service of the petitioner/probationer who had not even completed 240 days; that it is denied that the management had terminated the services of the workman illegally; that the action of the management in regard to the petitioner is fully at tandem with the terms and conditions of his appointment letter; that the petitioner was a probationer and to dispense with service on account of unsatisfactory performance was a judicious decision taken by the management and as such the action is absolutely legal, justified and duly at tandem with the provision of the appointment letter; that the workman had not completed 240 days with the management; that the management had duly vindicated its stand in the labour department despite highly militant and hostile behaviour of the petitioner; that the claimant is gainfully employed; that the claimant is not entitled to be reinstated as the management has already been closed down w.e..f 17.12.2008 and all the employees affected by the said closure have already been paid their full and final dues. All other allegations are denied. Hence it is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
I.D No. 249/05 Page 8 out of 13 In rejoinder to the amended written statement, all the averments of statement of claim are reaffirmed and of the amended written statement are denied by the workman.
On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 13.04.2006, the following issues had been framed:
(i) As per the terms of reference "Whether the services of workman Sh. Ramesh Chand, have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
(ii) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for and the case was adjourned for workman evidence.
In support of his case, the workman himself has appeared as WW1 in workman evidence, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW1/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW1/1 I.D No. 249/05 Page 9 out of 13 to WW1/10. In his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW1/A, the workman has reiterated the contents of his statement of claim.
The workman has also led the evidence of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Clerk, ESIC Department, Regional Office, Rajinder Place, Delhi in his workman evidence as WW2 who has stated that he had brought the summoned record of ESI in respect of workman Sh. Ramesh Chand; that the ESI record is Ex.WW2/A running into 149 pages (OSR).
After examining WW2, workman has closed his workman evidence, on record.
In support of its defence, management has examined Sh.Y.K. Sharma, Manager of the management as MW1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A as also relied upon the documents Exts.WW1/M1 to WW1/M4 (already exhibited) and Exts.MW1/1 to MW1/4. In his affidavit by way of evidence MW1 has reiterated the contents of their written statement.
After examining MW1, evidence on behalf of the management was closed and the case fixed for hearing of final arguments.
That thereafter, an application has been moved on behalf I.D No. 249/05 Page 10 out of 13 of the management under section 11 I.D. Act r/w order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the plea of the alleged closure of the factory/establishment of the management on the date alleged which has been allowed vide order dated 03.12.2011 passed in this regard, on record, the written statement amended, as above said, and the following additional issue viz. (i) Whether the factory/establishment of the management is closed w.e.f. 17.12.2008 as alleged? OPM. framed vide order dated 25.05.2012, on record and the case fixed for management evidence on the additional issue, on record.
In support of its case, the management has filed the affidavit of Sh. Shashi Bhushan, General Manager (HR & IR) of the management in the management evidence on the additional issue.
However, during the pendency of the case for management evidence on additional issue, the workman has settled all his disputes with the management in respect of his reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service, consequential benefits, if any, etc. vide settlement dated 28.09.2012 arrived at between the workman and the management in this regard before the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,Ex. C1 bearing the signatures of the I.D No. 249/05 Page 11 out of 13 workman at Points A thereon, in payment of an amount of Rs. 30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) on the part of the management to the workman in this regard which amount has been received by the workman from the management i.e. an amount of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) by way of an account payee cheque bearing no. 839838 dated 06.10.2012 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Rajendra Place, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi110008 and an amount of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) in cash in the court on 06.10.2012, thereby totalling an amount of Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) as agreed between the parties vide the above mentioned settlement agreement, Ex. C1, receipt of which amount the workman has acknowledged. Now, the workman is left with no claim whatsoever against the management.
Statements of the parties to the said effect have been recorded separately, on record.
As discussed above, as the matter has been settled between the parties, the workman is not entitled to any other claim.
Reference is answered accordingly and the Award is passed in terms of settlement. The Ahlmad is directed to send six copies of this I.D No. 249/05 Page 12 out of 13 award to the appropriate Government. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court on (CHANDRA GUPTA) 06.10.2012 Presiding Officer Labour CourtX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D No. 249/05 Page 13 out of 13