Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Saran Yadav vs M/S Material Movement Pvt. Ltd on 16 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
LIR No. 46379/1999
Date of institution 21.09.1999
Date of Award 16.09.2019
1.Sh. Ram Saran Yadav S/o Late Shri Bechan Yadav R/o H. No. Village Alahiya, Nai Kote, Sakaldiha, Distt. Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh-232109
2. Sh. Mani Ram S/o Sh. Umraon R/o B-103, Near Gupta Pan Bhandar, Okhla Phase-I New Delhi 110020
3. Sh. Harinder Chauhan S/o Sh. Banga Chauhan R/o House No. 509-A Madanpur Khadar New Delhi 110076
4. Sh. Hasan Imam S/o Late Abdul Hamid R/o B/R-11, Navjivan Camp Govindpuri, Kalkaji New Delhi 110019
5. Sh. Nebi Lal S/o Late Budhan Yadav R/o H. No. 64, New Hari Nagar Bharat Colony, Kachchi Kheri Road LIR no. 46379/1999 1/100 Faridabad, Haryana
6. Sh. Sudama Giri S/o Late Raghunath Giri R/o Village- Pagur Khoti PO Pachrukhi, Distt. Siwan, Bihar
7. Sh. Govind Tiwari S/o Sh. Ram Nath Tiwari R/o House No. S-184/1 Majdoor Camp Phase-II Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi 110020
8. Sh. Dal Singar S/o Sh. Brijlal R/o E-243, Sanjay Colony Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi 110020
9. Sh. Chari Sharma S/o Late Ajodha Sharma R/o 1438, Rajiv Nagar 7, New DLF Area Faridabad, Haryana
10. Sh. Virender Kumar Rao S/o Sh. Abhiraj Prasad Prem Nagar, lalkuan Mehrauli Badarpur Road New Delhi 110044
11. Sh. Swami Nath S/o Not known R/o Not known
12. Sh. Anil Kumar Gautam S/o Sh. Purushottam Ram R/o J-257, Prem Nagar, Tughalakabad, Badarpur LIR no. 46379/1999 2/100 South, Delhi 110044.
13. Sh. Surender Prasad S/o Sh. Shyam Lal R/o H. No. J-40B Prem Nagar, Tughalakabad, New Delhi.
14. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Late Triveni Ram Sharma R/o H.No. DN-1079 Dayal Nagar, PO Amar Nagar Faridabad, Haryana
15. Sh. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Late Kantir Singh R/o 65, New Hari Nagar Bharat Colony, Kachchi Kheri Road Faridabad, Haryana.
16. Sh. Ramashrey Prasad S/o Sh. Budhai Ram R/o 245-B, Prem Nagar Lalkuan, M. B. Road, New Delhi 110044
17. Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Yamuna Prasad R/o S-184, Jhuggi No. 157 New Sanjay Camp Part II Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi 110020
18. Sh. Murari Singh S/o Sh. Dayanand Singh R/o 143, Ekta Nagar Sector 27C, Mathura Road Faridabad, Haryana
19. Sh.Dinesh Sahni LIR no. 46379/1999 3/100 S/o Sh. Biranch Sahni R/o H. No. 176, Sect 27C, Swatantra Ekta Nagar 13/4, Faridabad, Haryana
20. Sh. Udai Kant Jha S/o Sh. Digamber Jha R/o K-161, Sourabh Vihar Jaitpur, Delhi 110044
21. Sh. Balkeshwar Chauhan S/o Sh.Dukhi Ram R/o H. No. 509-A Madanpur Khadar New Delhi 110076
22. Sh. Subhash Yadav S/o Sh. Kailash Yadav R/o H. No. 138, Gali no.3 Ganga Nagar Colony Bhagwanpur, PO Amar Nagar Faridabad, Haryana.
23. Sh. Kamleshwar Singh S/o Late Vijendra Prasad Singh R/o Village Kasba Maker Anjani Distt. Saran, Bihar.
24. Sh. Shrikant (since deceased) S/o Late Jagdish Prasad through the LR's
(a) Smt. Geeeta Devi W/o late Sh. Shrikant
(b) Sh. Nand Kishore S/o Late Sh.Shrikant LIR no. 46379/1999 4/100 Both R/o 1945, Gali no. 6 Near Syndicate Bank, New Jilpat Colony, Amarnager Faridabad, Haryana 121003
25. Sh. Kishan Pal S/o Sh. Shyam Lal R/o H.No. 115, Ekta Nagar Sector 27C, Faridabad,Haryana.
26. Sh. Arjun Sharma S/o Late Sh. Triveni Sharma R/o H.No. 1362 Rajiv Nagar, 7 New DLF Arrea PO Amar Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana
27. Sh. Gyan Chand Jha S/o Not Known R/o Not known
28. Sh. Umesh Chand S/o Sh. Parmeshwar Deen R/o H. No. 128, Gali no.4 Surya Vihar Part -2 Agwanpur, Amarnagar Faridabad, Haryana 121003
29. Sh. Ranjeet Sharma S/o Sh. Suresh Sharma R/o H. No. 176, Sector 27-C Swatantra Ekta Nagar, 13/4 Faridabad, Haryana
30. Sh. Pitambar Shah S/o Sh.Doman Shah R/o H. No. B-103 Near Gupta Pan Bhandar New Delhi 110020 LIR no. 46379/1999 5/100
31. Sh. Prem Narain S/o Sh. Basant Lal, R/o H. No. B-103 Near Gupta Pan Bhandar Okhla Phase-I New Delhi 110020
32. Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav S/o Sh. Ramjash Yadav R/o H. No. B-6/3 Yadav Pan Bhandar, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi 110020.
Through :
All India General Kamgar Union (Regd.) C-90-Z, DDA Flats, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.
.....Claimants (Workmen).
Vs.
1. M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd.
B-107, Okhla Phase -I New Delhi 110020
2. M/s Material Movement Pvt.Ltd.
Badarpur-Mehrauli Road New Delhi 110044
3. Subhash Engg. Works Prahaladpur, Badarpur- Mehrauli Road, New Delhi 110044 .....Managements.
LIR no. 46379/1999 6/100
AWARD
1. This award of mine will dispose off the reference sent to this court by the Office of the Secretary Labour , Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi, arising between the parties, as mentioned herein above, vide notification No.F.24/(3083)/99-Lab./38534-40 dated 14.09.1999 with the following terms of reference:-
"Whether the services of the workman Shri Ramsaran Yadav, Maniram Harinder Chauhan, Hasan Imam, Nebi Lal, Sudama Giri, Govind Tiwari, Dalsingar, Chari Sharma, Virender Kumar Rao, Swaminath, Anil Kumar Gautam, Surender Prasad, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Parmeshwar Singh, Ram Ashrey Prasad, Vijay Kumar Singh, Murari Singh, Dinesh Sahni, Udai Kant Jha, Balkeshwar Chauhan, Subhash Yadav, Kamleshwar Singh, Shrikant, Kishan Pal, Arjun Sharma, Gyan Chand Jha, Umesh Chand, Ranjeet Sharma, Pitambar Shah and Prem Narain have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management;
and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
LIR no. 46379/1999 7/100
2. Corrigendum was also received subsequently from the office of Secretary Labour Rajpur Road, Delhi vide notification no. F.24/(3038)/1999/Lab. 21803-09 dated 29.05.2000, vide which, the name of the claimant Ram Avtar Yadav was added in the original terms of the reference as under :
Whether the services of Ram Avtar Yadav have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiable by the management, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. The joint statement of claim was filed by the claimants on dated 04.02.2000, stating therein, that the industrial dispute has been referred to the Court by the Secretary (Labour), N.C.T. of Delhi vide his order dated 14.09.1999 in the abovesaid terms. It is also stated that the claimants have been employed in the establishment for the period and designation as shown in the list. It is also stated that the claimants were sincere and dedicated and they have not given any cause of complaint.
LIR no. 46379/1999 8/100
4. It is also stated that initially the establishment functioned solely at B-107, Okhla Phase O,but, gradually expanded and now besides this, there are two other sister concerns at Badarpur Mehrauli road, apart from the establishment of Badarpur Mehrauli Road, namely (M/s Subhash Engineering Works and M/s International Engg.) and the claimants have interchangeably worked in the various establishments from time to time with the continuity in their services.
5. It is also stated that after finalising the increment settlement with the union for all the establishments on 11.02.1999, the managements shifted the machinery (except few machines) back to the establishment at B-107, Okhla Phase I, at M/s Subhash Engineering Works from the establishment at Badarpur Mehrauli Road, for which the police complaint was lodged and labour authorities were also informed.
LIR no. 46379/1999 9/100
6. It is also stated that in order to break the union of the workers, the managements suspended the claimants in May 1998 and brought gundas to terrorize the claimants. When these tactics were failed, then, an attempt was made to show sham closure and refused duty to the claimants from 13.10.1998 onwards. It is also stated that this was an arbitrary and unjustified refusal of duty to the claimants, which amounts to illegal and unjustified termination of their services.
7. It is further stated that no notice was given to the claimants regarding their illegal and unjustified termination of services and the claimants are unemployed, since their illegal and arbitrary termination of services and they are not paid bonus.
8. It is further stated that the claimants had sent a demand letter to the managements through their union on LIR no. 46379/1999 10/100 20.10.1998 and there is no reply to the same on the part of the managements.
9. It is also stated that the managements had neither issued 30 days notice of termination as required in the Section 30 of Shops and Establishment Act nor paid one month salary in lieu of the notice and thus, the managements have violated the provisions of law.
10. It is also stated that the managements have not followed the principle of 'last come first go' as provided under the Industrial Dispute Act and thus, the termination from the services tantamount illegal.
11. It is also stated that the Conciliation Proceedings commenced, which resulted in to failure, due to adamant attitude of the managements, as the managements did not extend the requisite cooperation to reconcile the dispute. LIR no. 46379/1999 11/100
12. It is further stated that the refusal and/ or not allowing to work on duty by the managements tantamount to retrenchment as per Section 2(OO) of Industrial Dispute Act and such termination of services is without following the provision of Section 2(OO), 25 (F), 25(G), 25(H) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
13. It is also stated that the managements had never issued any charge-sheet nor conducted any enquiry against the claimants, hence the discharge from the services of the claimants tantamount to illegal and unjustified termination in the absence of any letter of termination. The claimants are deemed to have been in the employment of the managements and they are entitled to receive full arrears of salary with all other benefits and continuity of service and claimants have prayed for reinstating them with full back wages in continuity of service or any other relief to which, they are entitled.
LIR no. 46379/1999 12/100
14. Thereafter, on dated, 12.07.2000 another joint statement of claim was filed by five remaining claimants, namely, Gyan Chand Jha, Anil Kumar Gautam, Murari Singh, Umesh Chand Kanojia and Vijay Kumar Singh and they have repeated the averments in verbatims, which were made in the statement of claim filed by other claimants on dated 04.02.2000.
15. The managements no. 1 and 2 have filed the written statement and contested the case on the ground inter-alia that M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. near Oriental Structural Plant, Village Tughlakabad, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi was closed permanently w.ef. 13.10.1998, after completing all the formalities as required under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, so, there cannot be a case of reinstatement against the closed unit.
16. The managements have not denied that the claimants were working in their establishment and stated that the rate LIR no. 46379/1999 13/100 of wages is a matter of record. The managements have also stated that the whole story seems to have been concocted by the claimants in their statement of claim. The factory was closed permanently w.e.f. 13.10.1998, hence, question of entering any settlement regarding the increment on 11.02.1999 after closure of the establishment does not arise.
17. It is also stated that the factory was lastly functioning near Oriental Structural Plant Village Tughlakabad, Badarpur Mehrauli Rad, New Delhi and the same was closed after serving 60 days notice to the appropriate govt. under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the copy of the notice was attached with the written statement.
18. These managements No. 1 and 2 have also stated that they have no factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd.
(management no. 1 and 2) at B-107, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi and also stated that the two factories M/s LIR no. 46379/1999 14/100 Subhash Engg. Works and International Engg. Co. are separate factories having separate entities and these factories have separate constitution, separate ESI and PF numbers. These two factories were sealed by the govt. on 18.11.2000 as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and these factories are still closed.
19. It is also stated that the workers Virender Rao, Subhash Yadav, Udaikant Jha, Ranjit Sharma, Jawahar Sharma were retrenched on 07.07.98 due to reorganization, general depression and shrinkage in fresh orders. It is also stated that one of these workers namely Shri Jawahar Sharma had settled his claim voluntarily with the managements and received full and final settlement and remaining five workers were further offered legal dues , but, they did not receive the same for the reasons only known to them. It is also stated that the Asstt. Labour Commissioner concerned was requested to advice the workers to accept their dues, but in vain.
LIR no. 46379/1999 15/100
20. These managements have denied that closure of the factory was not legal or justified and stated that union had not given the names of workers, who are alleged to have been suspended and in the absence of the same, it is not possible to give detailed comments and stated that the closure of the factory was declared on13.10.1998 after fulfilling the conditions under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Dispute Act and the closure is both legal and justified. These managements have denied that no notice was given to the workers and stated that copy of the notice under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Dispute Act were displayed on the notice board of the factory on 13.08.1998. The position of the closure was further elucidated vide managements letter dated 13.10.98 addressed to the ALC(South)Giri Nagar, new Delhi and copy of the same was also sent to the Labour Commissioner, Delhi and the Delhi State Kamgar Union, New Delhi, which have raised the present dispute and on dated 16.10.1998, the ALC(South) LIR no. 46379/1999 16/100 visited the factory personally and position was explained to him in detail and the managements vide its letter dated 18.11.1998 and 02.12.1998 sent all the relevant documents to him (The ALC) in response to the letter dated 03.11.1998.
21. The managements no. 1 and 2 have denied that the claimants are unemployed and stated that these are gainfully employed and denied that the managements have received any demand notice. It is also denied that the managements have violated any provision of the law and stated that the unit of the managements was registered under the Factory Act, 1948 and provisions of D.S.E. act 1954 are not applicable and the factory was permanently closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998 and principle of 'last come first go' is not applicable in case of this establishment.
22. These managements have stated that the claimants were not retrenched and their services have been terminated w.e.f. 13.10.1998, as a result of permanent LIR no. 46379/1999 17/100 closure of the factory after fulfilling of the legal formalities, as per the Provision of Industrial Dispute Act and stated that the some provisions are applicable in case of retrenchment and in case of closure and prayed for announcing the award against the claimants and in favour of the managements.
23. The management no.3 had also filed a separate written statement in a concise manner stating therein that the claimants were neither appointed in the management no.3 nor paid by it and stated that there is no relationship of master and servant between the claimants and the answering management. It is also stated that the claimants are not workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act. It is also stated that the factory of the management no.3 was sealed by the government on dated 18.11.2000, as the same was not in the confirming area, as there was order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is also stated that the management no.3 is a separate entity having separate premises, ESI, PF number and statutory licence and prayed LIR no. 46379/1999 18/100 for dismissal of the statement of claim.
24. The claimants have filed the rejoinder and denied the averments made in the written statements and reiterated the contents of their statement of claim.
25. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.
(1) Whether the management has been closed permanently w.e.f. 13.10.98 as per preliminary objection no. 1 of W/S?
(2) Whether the services of Shri Ram Saran yadav, Mani Ram, Harinder Chauhan, Hasan Imam, Nebi Lal, Sudama Giri, Gobind Tiwari, Dal Singar, Chari Sharma, Virender Kumar Rao, Swami nath, Anil Kumar Gautam, Surender Prasad, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Parmeshwar Singh, Ram Ashrey Pd., Vijay Kumar Singh, Murari Singh, Dinesh Sahni, Udai Kant Jha, Balkeshwar Chauhan, Subhash Yadav, kamleshwar Singh, Shrikant, Kishan Pal, Arjun Sharma, Gian Chand Jha, Umesh Chand, Ranjeet Sharma, Pitamber Shah and Prem Narain have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
LIR no. 46379/1999 19/100 (3) Relief.
26. In order to prove their case, the claimant Ramashrey Prasad has been examined as WW-1. Shri Parmeshwar Singh has been examined as WW-2. Shri Srikant has been examined as WW-3. Shri Chari Sharma has been examined as WW-4. Shri Ashok Sharma has been examined as WW-5. Shri Anil Kumar Gautam has been examined as WW-6. Shri Mani Ram has been examined as WW-7. Shri Ram Saran has been examined as WW-8, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh has been examined as WW-9. Shri Arjun Sharma has been examined as WW-10. Shri Ranjit Sharma has been examined as WW-11. Shri Govind has been examined as WW-12. Shri Dalsinghar has been examined as WW-13. Shri Kamleshwar Singh has been examined as WW-14. Shri Subhash Yadav has been examined as WW-15. Shri Nebi Lal has been examined as WW-16, Shri Umesh Chander Kanojia has been examined as WW-17. Shri Dinesh Sahni has been examined as WW-18. Shri Surender Prasad has been LIR no. 46379/1999 20/100 examined as WW-19. Shri virender Kumar has been examined as WW-20. Shri Kishan has been examined as WW-21. Shri Hasan Iman has been examined as WW-22. Shri Balkeshwar Chauhan has been examined as WW-23. Shri Raghunath Giri has been examined as WW-24. Shri Udai Kant Jha has been examined as WW-25. Shri Murari Singh has been examined as WW-26. Shri Prem Narain has been examined as WW-27. Shri Pitamber has been examined as WW-28. Shri Ram Avtar has been examined as WW-29. Shri Harinder Chauhan has been examined as WW-
30.
27. The managements have examined Shri Subhash Arora as MW-1 and Shri K.L. Arora as MW-2.
28. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide his award dated 08.07.2010 was pleased to hold that the management side has been successful to prove before the court by way of oral, as well as, documentary evidence that the LIR no. 46379/1999 21/100 management has been closed permanently w.e.f. 13.10.1998 and further held that the claimants have miserably failed to prove by way of any cogent evidence, either or documentary, that their services were really terminated illegally and /or unjustifiable by the management and resultantly held that the claimants are not entitled to claim any relief against the managements.
29. Feeling aggrieved with the award dated 08.07.2010 the claimants had filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 17.07.2018 was pleased to quash and set aside the award dated 08.07.2010 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and remanded the case to this Court to consider the compensation payable to the claimants, in the light of under Section 25 FFF(1) of Industrial Dispute Act, keeping in mind the observation and findings contained in the said judgment dated 17.07.2018 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also requested to LIR no. 46379/1999 22/100 the Labour Court to decide the reference expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of the certified copy of the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
30. Since, the matter could not dispose off within the period of six months, so, the predecessor of this court was pleased to write a letter of request to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for seeking extension of time. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 28.03.2019 was pleased to extend the period of six months from 28.03.2019 for the disposal of the present matter.
31. After remanding of the matter from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this Court has given the opportunity to the claimants to lead further evidence.
32. Shri Harinder Chauhan has been examined as WW-30 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-30/A and an application was also LIR no. 46379/1999 23/100 moved by Ld. Authorized Representative for the workmen for recalling to Shri Dalsingar , who has already been examined as WW-13, so, Dalsingar was allowed to be recalled. He has examined himself vide his affidavit Ex. WW-13/A-1. He was cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative of the managements.
33. The Ld. Authorized Representatives of the management no. 1 to 3 have given the statements that the managements do not want to lead any other evidence after remanding of the present matter to this Court. So, the evidence of the managements were closed.
34. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties.
35. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimants has submitted that the dates of appointments of the claimants are mentioned in annexure P-2, copy whereof is LIR no. 46379/1999 24/100 Mark X-2 and submitted that the managements had illegally terminated the services of the claimants and the management no. 1 and 2 have shown sham closure of the managements on dated 13.10.1998 and refused to allow the claimants to join their duties and submitted that the termination of services of the claimants is illegal and unjustifiable and also submitted that after remanding of the case the Authorized Representative of the management no. 1 and 2 had filed letter of authority Ex. WW-13/17, signed by Kishan Lal Arora and Vijay Arora, wherein, the name of CCS Projects and Equipment Pvt. Ltd is mentioned and also submitted that after the reference was referred to this court, claimants Swaminath , Udai Kant Jha and Gyan Chand Jha had settled the matter with the managements and submitted that after remanding of the case by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, WW-13 has again examined himself and he has relied upon Ex. WW-13/17 and submitted that in view of the same, the claimants have succeeded in proving that managements no.1 and 2 have opened another LIR no. 46379/1999 25/100 establishment in the name of CCS Projects and Equipment Pvt. Ltd., so, all the claimants are liable to be reinstated with full back wages as the closure is sham and prayed for passing the award against all the three managements.
36. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative of M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (managements no.1 and
2) has submitted that since the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in para 53 of its judgment dated 17.07.2018 was pleased to upheld the findings given by the predecessor of this court that the closure of the Badarpur factory of the management no. 1 and 2 was genuine and real and submitted that the management no. 1 and 2 i.e. (the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd.) have already closed their factory at Badarpur.
37. He has further submitted that the definition of closure is given under Section 2(CC) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Which means the "permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof" and submitted that the (managements no.1 and 2) Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. has LIR no. 46379/1999 26/100 taken the plea that it's factory at Badarpur was closed and from the testimony of management witnesses no.1 and 2 and the documents relied upon by them, it is proved on the record that the previous directors of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) had transferred their entire shares vide agreement dated 18.06.1998 Ex. MW-2/1 in favour of Puneesh Khanna and Shri Subhash Chand Arora and submitted that in view of financial depression and the hostile atmosphere created by the claimants in the management, the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. had to close its factory and notice of closure dated 13.08.1998 Ex. MW- 1/1 was served to the claimants and also affixed on the premises of the management (Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. ) and w.e.f. 13.10.1998 the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) got closed and submitted that the closure of the management Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. has already been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 17.07.2018 and submitted that Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (the managements no.1 and 2) has LIR no. 46379/1999 27/100 never terminated the services of the claimants and the claimants have failed to prove on record that the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. had ever terminated the services of the claimants illegally. He has also submitted that the claimants have also failed to prove on record that the closure of the (management no.1 and 2) Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was sham in any manner and submitted that the CCS Projects & Equipments Pvt. Ltd. is not party to the present lis and submitted that the claimants have failed to prove on record that they had ever served in the CCS Projects & Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and further submitted that the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd.(management no. 1 and 2) has no concern with the management no. 3 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 17.07.2018 was pleased to remand the matter to this Court to consider the compensation payable to the claimants in the light of the Section 25 FFF (1) of Industrial Dispute Act or its proviso and submitted that the (managements no.1 and 2 )Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. is ready to pay the compensation to the LIR no. 46379/1999 28/100 claimants, as per the provision of Section 25 FFF (1) of Industrial Dispute Act and submitted that even at the time of closure of the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd.(management no. 1 and 2) had written letters to the claimants to take their compensation on closure of the factory of the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd.(management no. 1 and 2) at Badarpur, but, the claimants at that time and even at the time of recording of the evidence of the claimants, prior to the disposal of the present matter by the Predecessor of this Court and even after remanding the present matter to this Court, the claimants have refused to accept the compensation on the closure of the factory of the management Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) and since the factory of the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2 ) at Badarpur, wherein the claimants were working, has already been closed so, the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted in a closed factory. He has also submitted that during the evidence of the claimants, the management has moved an application LIR no. 46379/1999 29/100 regarding the passing of an award and the (management no. 1 and 2) M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. is still ready to pay the compensation to the claimants as per provisions of Section 25 FFF (1) of I. D. Act and submitted that the motive of closure of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) cannot be gone into by this Court.
38. Whereas, the, ld. AR of the management no.3 has submitted that since the claimants have failed to bring on record any document to show that they were ever employees of management no.3 and submitted that from the para no. 55 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on dated 17.07.2018, it is clear that the Hon'ble High Court had also observed that the claimants have not placed on record their latter of appointments, or any evidence to support that they were interchangeably working at Badarpur factory and at premises of M/s Subhash Eng. Works(management no. 3) or that any work was LIR no. 46379/1999 30/100 discharged by them at B -107, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. And submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also observed that the claimants were working at Badarpur Factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) and the said Factory actually has been closed on 13.10.1998 and submitted that since the claimants have failed to prove on record that they were employees of management no.3, so, management no.3 has no concerned with the claimants and the claim petition of the claimants against the Management No,. 3 is liable to be dismissed.
39. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties and perused the record.
40. The perusal of the records reveals that the claimants have claimed that the managements have illegally terminated their services and prayed for reinstated them LIR no. 46379/1999 31/100 with full back wages. The burden of proving issue no. 2 was on the claimants.
41. Since, the M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) has taken the plea that the factory of this management at Badarpur has been closed permanently w.e.f. 13.10.1998, so, it was incumbent on the part of this management to prove that the factory of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) at Badarpur has been closed permanently on 13.10.1998.
42. In order to prove the case of the M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) Shri Subhash Arora has been examined as MW-1 vide his affidavit Ex. MW-1/A. He has deposed that the factory of the management was situated near Oriental Structure Plant Village Tuglakabad, Badarpur, New Delhi and it was closed permanently w.e.f. 13.10.1998. The management before closing the factory gave two months notice to the LIR no. 46379/1999 32/100 appropriate government under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Dispute Act, vide notice dated 13.08.1998 and detailed reasons for closure were elucidated in the annexure attached with the said notice and copy of the notice is Ex. MW-1/1. He has also deposed that the said factory was accordingly closed permanently w.e.f. 13.10.1998 and notice dated 13.08.1998 regarding the closure was also displayed at the notice board for the information of the workers. Copy of the notice is Ex. MW-1/2. He has also deposed that Chief Inspector of the factory was also informed regarding the closure vide registered letter dated 07.10.2006, copy of the registered letter dated 07.10.2006 is Ex. MW-1/3. He has further deposed that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was also informed about the closure vide letter dated 07.04.1999 and requested to cancel their Provident Fund number allotted to them,copy whereof is Ex. MW-1/4 and Regional Director, ESIC, New Delhi was also informed about the closure of the factory vide their letter dated 07.04.1999, copy whereof is Ex. MW-1/5 and Assistant LIR no. 46379/1999 33/100 Labour Commissioner was also informed about the closure vide letter dated 13.10.1998, copy whereof is also endorsed to the Delhi State kamgar Union, Giri Nagar, New Delhi,copy whereof is Ex. MW-1/6 and the workers were also informed vide letter dated 28.10.1998 that the factory was closed permanently and they should accept their legal dues, copy whereof is Ex. MW-1/7.
43. It is further deposed that the notice of closure was also published in Local Daily 'Nav Bharat Times, copy whereof is Ex. MW-1/8 and General Secretary of Delhi Kamgar Union, Balmukand Khand, Giri Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi was also requested to direct the workers to receive their legal dues,copy whereof is Ex. MW-1/9. Chief Inspector of the factory was requested. Vide letter dated 01.11.1998 that the licence may be cancelled. The licence was also surrendered, copy whereof is Ex. MW-1/10.
44. He has also deposed that the factory was closed on LIR no. 46379/1999 34/100 dated 13.10.1998. it was lastly functioning at Village Tuglakabad, near Oriental Structure Plant, New Delhi and not at B-107, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi as alleged.
45. He has also deposed that the closure of the factory was due to general depression and shrinkages of work and the factory of the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was sealed in the year 2000 on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as they were functioning in the non confirming area.
46. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimants and during his cross- examination, he has stated that he can produce the resolution, vide which, he was appointed as director . He has also stated that he was appointed Director in the middle of 1998, but, he does not remember the exact date. He has also stated that notice Ex. MW-1/2 bears signatures of other LIR no. 46379/1999 35/100 director Shri Punit Khanna. He has also stated that there was no Managing Director and Ex. MW-1/3 was signed by Shri Kishore Kumar, who was the Chief Executive. He has also stated that notice Ex. MW-1/8 was issued on behalf of the Company. He has also stated that without seeing the record, he cannot tell, from whom, he had purchased shares of the Company in the year 1998 and also stated that at that time, the Company was in running condition. He has further stated that management had licence for running the factory and when the factory was closed, the licence was surrendered to the Chief Inspector Factories. He has also stated that he cannot tell the number of machines installed in the factory, when, he had purchased the same. He has further stated that the machinery was sold off, when the factory was closed and he is having the account books to show that the machinery was sold.
47. He has further stated that 25-30 workers were working in the factory in the year 1998. He has admitted it to be LIR no. 46379/1999 36/100 correct that the letter Ex. MW-1/10 is received only by the office of Inspector of Factories Zone South and not by the Chief Inspector Factories , Rajpur Road and he does not have the original of the said received copy. He has also stated that he can show the original of Ex. MW-1/3 alongwith the registered AD slip. He has also stated that he cannot tell, if the Chief Inspector of Factories Delhi had sent them any letter regarding the cancellation of licence issued under the Factories Act.
48. He has further stated that he knows Kishan Arora, who was the Managing Director of factory, from whom he had purchased the same. He has further stated that he is not aware about the business activities of Shri Kishan Lal Arora and he also does not know if Shri Kishan Lal Arora own a factory in the name and style of M/s CCS Projects, Sikri Haryana and he does not know, whether the office of M/s Material Movement was functioning at B-107, Okhla Phase I. He has also stated that Ex. MW-1/X-1 is signed by him at LIR no. 46379/1999 37/100 point 'A' and Ex. MW-1/X-2 shows the correct address of the management at point 'A'. He has also stated that they have purchased the factory somewhere in June 1998 and the said factory functioned upto October 1998 approximately.
49. He has also stated that they have sold machinery to M/s CCS Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Laxmi Industries Faridabad and he cannot tell the names of the owners of the said industries and he cannot tell whether Shri Kishan Lal Arora is the Managing Director of M/s CCS Projects.
50. He has also stated that he had brought 14 original vouchers regarding the sale of machinery after closure of the factory and the same are Ex. MW-1/X-3 and he had also brought the original agreement of June 1998 relating to the sale of shares to him, photocopy whereof is Ex. MW-1/X-4. He has also stated that he does not remember as to on what basis he had stated in his affidavit that the workers of Subhash Engineering works and International Engineering LIR no. 46379/1999 38/100 Company have settled their claims with their managements as stated by him in para 4 of his affidavit.
51. He has also stated that he is not aware whether the winding up proceedings have been initiated or not and he is not aware about the retrenchment of the workman. He has also stated that he is not aware whether manufacturing of machinery for Stone Crushing is going on or not. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
52. Shri K.L. Arora Ex. Managing Director of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) has been examined as MW-2 vide his affidavit Ex. MW-2/A. He has deposed that he was the Managing Director of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) and two other directors of the same were Smt. Kamlesh Arora(who was the wife of this witness) and Shri Vijay Kumar Arora (who is the son of this witness) and this witness and other directors were desirous to sell their shares in the Company LIR no. 46379/1999 39/100 and informed the market about the same and on coming to know about their such desire, Shri Punish Khanna and Shri Subhash Arora approached them for purchasing the shares and proposal was accepted and both the parties had entered into an agreement for the same on 18.06.1998, vide agreement, photocopy whereof is Ex.MW-2/1and accordingly, this witness alongwith other directors of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) had sold their shares to them. He has also deposed that this witness and other directors ceased to be directors of the Company and two directors, namely, Shri Punish Khanna and Shri Subhash Arora had purchased their shares in the said Company and became directors thereof. He has also deposed that the registered office of the Company was also changed and he had informed to the Labour Commissioner, 15 Rajpur Road, Delhi, vide letter dated 18.06.1998 regarding the change of directorship and also informed that total management of the said Company has been taken over by new directors and the new directors have taken total LIR no. 46379/1999 40/100 liabilities of the Company including the liabilities of workers. He has also deposed that the agreement for sale of share was also ratified in the meeting of Board of Directors on 15.06.1998 vide Ex. MW-2/2. He has further deposed that the current account of the Company with the State Bank of India, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 was closed and bank was informed vide letter Ex. MW-2/3 and it was reported that new directors had opened a new current account with the bank. He has further deposed that after the sale of shares to the new directors, who had taken the asset liability of the Company, this witness ceased to have control in the affairs of the Company. He has also deposed that subsequently, in the month of October 1998, he came to know that the new directors have closed their factory permanently and the same is still reported to be not working and no manufacturing activities are going on in this factory.
53. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimants and during his cross- LIR no. 46379/1999 41/100 examination, he has reiterated that he was director of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) since it started and it was difficult for him to tell the date of start of the management. He has also stated that his son Vijay Kumar Arora was partner in M/s Subhash Engineering Works, New Delhi (management no. 3) and his wife and his brother Subhash Chand Arora were other partners in the said firm. He has also deposed that subsequently, Shri Subhash Arora had withdrawn from M/s Subhash Engineering Works. He has admitted that Ex. MW-2/W-1 and MW-2/W-2 are the agreements between the management and the union. He has also stated that Shri Subhash Chand Arora, who had purchased the shares of his Company is not his relative. He has further deposed that he was running M/s International Engineering Works after sale of the shares in the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2). He has admitted that the directors, who had purchased his shares were in constant touch with him and were taking his advice. He has also deposed that new LIR no. 46379/1999 42/100 directors had never shown him the copy of the balance sheet of the Company and M/s International Engineering Works was closed permanently sometime in the year 2008 on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He has admitted that he is running Company in the name of M/s CCS Projects and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. at village Sikri, Tehsil Ballabhgar, District Faridabad , Haryana. He has also stated that after closure of the International Engineering Company on the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, he started this business. He has further deposed that M/s CCS Projects and Equipment Pvt Ltd. was not working prior to the year 2000 as it was under construction, at that time. He has also deposed that M/s CCS Projects and Equipment Pvt/ Ltd. was engaged in manufacturing of several items in addition to some items which were being manufactured by M/s International Engineering Company and the items manufactured by M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) and International Engineering Company were quite different. He has admitted it to be LIR no. 46379/1999 43/100 correct that after the closure of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) some machines of the Company were sold by the Company to them and Ex. MW2/W3 to MW2/W7 are the photocopies of the bills in this regard. He has also deposed that M/s Material Movement Pvt.Ltd (management no.1 and 2) never sought his advice regarding the sale of machines, in consequence of closure of the factory. He does not remember, if any list of seniority was maintained in the management 12 years ago, when he was Director in the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. He has also deposed that his son Vijay Arora is also Director in the M/s CCS Projects and Equipments Pvt. Ltd because the unit, he was running in the name of M/s Subhash Engineering Works was closed permanently by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He has admitted that his wife and his daughter in law are also Directors in the M/s CCS Projects and Equipment Pvt. Ltd. He has denied that the workers were suspended to break the unity of the workers. He has admitted that the stone crushers are not working in Delhi LIR no. 46379/1999 44/100 due to the Direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
54. Since the burden of proving issue no.1 was on the management and MW-1 Sh. Subhash Arora has deposed that the factory of the management was permanently closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998 and prior to the closing of the factory, the management had given two month's notice dated 13.08.1998 to the appropriate government u/S 25 FF (A) of the ID Act vide Ex. MW-1/1 and detailed reasons for closure of the factory were given in the Annexure to Ex.MW1-/1 which is as under :
Annexure Statement of reasons (I) The present management purchased shares of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. near Oriental Structural Plant, Village Tuglakabad, Badarpur Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110044 in June 1998 and took over control of the aforesaid factory w.e.f. 18.06.1998 in the hope of running a successful and profitable business. Due to depression in the market and shrinkage of fresh orders, as a measure of re-organization we retrenched six workers junior in their category w.e.f. 08.07.1998 and these workers were personally offered notice of retrenchment alongwith legal dues by demand drafts drawn on State Bank of India, Badarpur, New Delhi vide our letters dated 07.07.1998, but, the workers did not receive the same. LIR no. 46379/1999 45/100
The notices and amounts demand drafts were thereafter sent by Registered A.D. post at their residential addresses, but, the workers deliberately did not take delivery of the letters and continued forcefully entering the factory even after notice of retrenchment for about four days. Repeated requests to the police authorities and the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (South), Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi proved futile and the aforesaid authorities did not intervene. Several Communications in writing to the authorities concerned were sent ,but, to no avail.
The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (South) was informed that the six workers have deliberately refused and avoided to take retrenchment notices as and when offered and was requested to advise the workers to receive their legal dues, but, till date the workers have not collected the same from us.
(2) In the meantime, the workers resorted to go slow strike and total non-cooperation and also started misbehaving with their superiors and started disobeying their superior's a legitimate orders as detailed in our various letters sent to the concerned Asstt. Labour Commissioner (South) with copies to the Labour Commissioner, 15 Rajpur Road, Delhi.
(3) On 05.08.1998 vide our letter of even date one of the workers Shri Dal Singar was suspended on charges of misconduct, but, he continued not to receive letter of suspension and forced his entry in the factory with the help of other workers. The Police authorities were requested vide our letters of 7 th, 10th and 11th August 1998 to intervene and advise the worker to leave the factory premises. Since he has been suspended and his entry in the factory is illegal. Similar requests were made to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (South) also vide copies of our aforesaid letters, but, all in vain.
On 12.08.1998 after arguments he received the notice of suspension , but, after receiving the notice he assaulted Shri Kishore Kumar Sethi, Chief Executive of the factory. The other workers at his instance also rushed with iron rods etc. to assault him. A report to this effect was lodged with the SHO Okhla Police Station, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi-110021 on 12.08.1998.
In view of the surcharged atmosphere and total non-cooperation and indifferent attitude of the workers, Shri Kishore Kumar Sethi, Chief Executive who is looking after the working of the factory has expressed his inability to work any longer and has tendered his LIR no. 46379/1999 46/100 resignation.
In view of inter-aila the total non-
cooperation, indifferent and violent attitude of the workers, we have decided for reasons beyond our control to permanently close the factory w.e.f. 13.10.1998. The workers will be paid all legal dues as provided under Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
55. Since the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (Management no.1 and 2) has successfully proved on the record that notice regarding the closure of the factory was also put on the notice board for information of the workers, vide Ex. MW-1/2, Chief Inspector of the Factory was also informed about the closure vide registered letter Ex. MW- 1/3, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was also informed about the closure vide Ex. MW-1/4 and the Regional Director of ESIC, New Delhi was also informed about such closure vide Ex. MW-1/5, Assistant Labour Commissioner was also informed about the same vide Ex.MW-1/6, individual workers were also informed about the closure vide Ex.MW-1/7 and Inspector of factories was also informed vide Ex.MW-1/10 and thus, from the unrebutted and unimpeached testimony of MW-1/1 and the documents relied upon by him and from the testimony of MW-2, it is LIR no. 46379/1999 47/100 proved on the record that Shri K.L. Arora Ex. Managing Director of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. and other directors namely, Smt. Kamlesh Arora and Shri Vijay Kumar Arora had transferred their shares in the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) vide agreement dated 18.06.1998 Ex. MW-2/1 in favour of Shri Punish Khanna and Shri Subhash Arora and from the abovesaid statement of reasons Annexure to Ex. MW-1/1, it is also proved that not only in view of financial hardship but, in view of hostile atmosphere created by the claimants by way of assaulting to Shri Kishor Kumar Sethi, who was the Chief Executive in the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) it was difficult for the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) to continue the factory and in view of the same the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) had to close its factory at Badarpur. The testimony of the MW-1 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Similarly, the contents of Annexure to Ex. MW-1/1 also remained LIR no. 46379/1999 48/100 unrebutted and uncontroverted, thus from the testimonies of MW-1 and MW-2 and the documents relied upon by MW-1, it is proved that the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) was not able to run its factory at Badarpur, so, in view of the reasons mentioned in the annexure , M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) has proved that in view of the unavoidable circumstances, M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) had to closed its factory at Badarpur on 13.10.1998 and prior to the closure of the factory, the notice was also served and affixed on the premises of the management. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (managements no.1 and 2)has successfully proved on record that its factory at Badarpur was closed permanently on 13.10.1998, so, issue no.1 is decided against the claimants and in favour of the management M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2).
LIR no. 46379/1999 49/100
56. The burden of proving issue no.2 was on the claimants and in order to prove their case, Shri Ramashray Parsad has been examined himself as WW-1 vide his affidavit Ex. WW- 1/A, wherein, he has deposed that he worked in the establishment since 01.05.1992 on the post of helper and his last drawn salary was Rs. 1,977/- per month and initially the establishment was functioning solely at B-107, Okhla Phase I, but, gradually expanded and now besides this, there are two other sister concerns at Badarpur Mehrauli Road, Delhi, apart from the establishment at Badarpur Mehrauli Road, Delhi viz. M/s Subhash Engineering Works and M/s International Engineering and the claimant has interchangeably worked in different establishments from time to time with the continuity in service and after finalizing increment settlement with the union for all the three establishments on 11th February 1998, the managements had shifted the machinery (except few machines) back to the establishment at B-107, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi and some machinery to M/s Subhash LIR no. 46379/1999 50/100 Engineering Works from establishment at Badarpur Mehrauli Road. He has also deposed that in order to break the union of the claimants, the management suspended the claimant in May 1998, brought gundas to terrorize the claimant and when these tactics got failed , then an attempt was made to show the sham closure and refused duty to the claimant from 13.10.1998 onwards.
57. He has also deposed that the demand notice was issued by the union through registered A.D. and same is Ex. WW-1/1 and postal receipts thereto is Ex. WW-1/2. Report of the Labour Inspector is Ex. WW-1/3. He has also deposed that another demand notice was issued for the reinstatement of the claimants, namely, Shri Udai Kant Jha, Shri Virender Rao, Shri Subhash Yadav, Shri Ranjeet Sharma, Shri Jawahar, Shri G.L. Jha and the same is Ex. WW-1/4. The postal receipts there to is Ex. WW-1/5 and the letters sent by the management in the Conciliation Proceedings is Ex. WW- 1/7. The copy of Resolution and notice are Ex. WW-1/8 and LIR no. 46379/1999 51/100 Ex. WW-1/9 respectively and the reply filed by the union to the letter of the management filed before Conciliation Officer is Ex. WW-1/10. The report of the Labour Inspector is Ex. WW-1/11 and the copy of the complaint sent by the union is Ex. WW-1/12. The copy of the complaint sent by the union to the police is Ex. WW-1/13. The copy of the complaint requesting the Asstt. Labour Commissioner to initiate the proceedings against M/s International Engineering & others is Ex. WW-1/14. The copy of the complaint to the police is Ex. WW-1/15 and the copy of the statement of claim filed before the Conciliation Officer is Ex. WW-1/16.
58. He has further deposed that his services have been terminated illegally by the management and he tried to look for a gainful employment, but, he did not get any employment till date and prayed for his reinstatement with back wages.
LIR no. 46379/1999 52/100
59. This claimant was cross-examined by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the management. During his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know English language. He does not know the contents of his affidavit. He does not know the number of documents/ enclosures with his affidavit. He has denied that M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. has been closed and stated that the factory is being run in Sikri. He has denied that M/s Subhash Engineering Works and International Engineering Works have been sealed as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
60. He has admitted that some of the workers have settled their claims with the management. He has also deposed that during his tenure of service in the management, PF and ESI were deducted. He has admitted that he was paid bonus in the year 1997-1998 by the management of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. after closure of the factory. He has admitted that he does not have any proof of shifting LIR no. 46379/1999 53/100 machinery from M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. to the other factory. He has also deposed that he did not get any letters sent by the management, vide which, he was directed to collect the dues.
61. He has further deposed that he is not aware if the news was published in the newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' dated 3rd November 1998 and he did not go to the management to receive any dues. He has also deposed that he is not aware about any offer of the legal dues made by the management. He has further deposed that he is not aware, if the management had written any letter to the union for directing the workers to collect their illegal dues.
62. He has also deposed that he does not have any proof to prove of shifting of factory to B-107, Okhla Industrial Phase I, Delhi and this claimant has also deposed that he is not ready to receive legal dues as a result of closure of factory, even now, before this Court.
LIR no. 46379/1999 54/100
63. He has also deposed that he is married having five children and he is paying Rs. 300/- as house rent and his family expenditure is about Rs. 1,500/- per month and deposed that he is working as baildar on daily basis since closure of factory and he earns Rs. 50/- per month and he tried to find out job, but, could not search. He has also deposed that he prayed to the Laxmi Engineering for job, but, in vain and he did not register himself in Employment Exchange. He has denied that he has filed false claim.
64. Shri Parmeshwar Singh, claimant has examined himself as WW-2 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-2/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the contents of his affidavit given in the evidence and he is not ready to receive legal LIR no. 46379/1999 55/100 dues as result of closure of the factory even now, before this Court.
65. Shri Srikant, claimant has examined himself as WW-3 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-3/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross- examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the contents of his affidavit given in the evidence and he did not go to the management to receive his dues. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues as result of closure of the factory, even now before this Court.
66. Shri Chandi Sharma has examined himself as WW-4 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-4/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross- LIR no. 46379/1999 56/100 examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know English. He has further stated that he does not have any proof of functioning of the factory. He has admitted that he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the management no. 1 in the Labour Office Okhla after closure of the factory. He has admitted that he did not approach to the management for payment of legal dues consequent to closure of factory w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also deposed that he is not ready to receive legal dues with the closure of the factory, even now, before this Court and stated that now a days he is doing the job of baildari.
67. Shri Ashok Sharma, claimant has examined himself as WW-5 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-5/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the LIR no. 46379/1999 57/100 management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the English language. He does not have any proof of functioning of the factory. He has admitted that after closure of the factory, he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the management no. 1, after closure of the factory, in the Labour Office, Okhla, He did not approach to the management for the payment of his legal dues consequent to the closure of the factory w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues, as result of closure of the factory, even now, before this Court.
68. Shri Anil Kumar Gautam, claimant has examined himself as WW-6 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-6/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the English language. He LIR no. 46379/1999 58/100 has also stated that the factory of management no. 1 is not closed. He has admitted that he does not have any proof of functioning of the factory. He has admitted that after closure of the factory he was paid bonus for the year 1997- 1998 by the management no. 1 after closure of the factory in the Labour Office, Okhla, He has also admitted that he did not approach to the management for the payment of his legal dues consequent to the closure of the factory w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues, as result of closure of the factory, even now before this Court.
69. This witness in one breath has stated that management no. 1 is not closed and since he has admitted that he does not have any proof of functioning of the factory of management no. 1 and he has also admitted that he has received bonus for the year 1997-1998 from the management no. 1 after closing of the factory, so, his testimony does not inspire any confidence. LIR no. 46379/1999 59/100
70. Shri Mani Ram, claimant has examined himself as WW- 7 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-7/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the contents of his affidavit given in the evidence. He has admitted it to be correct that M/a Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998 and he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. after closure of the factory in the Labour Office, Okhla. He has also admitted that he did not approach to the management for getting his legal dues after the closure of the factory. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive his legal dues, even now.
71. Shri Ram Saran, claimant has examined himself as LIR no. 46379/1999 60/100 WW-8 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-8/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the English language. He does not have any documentary proof to support his contention that the factory in question was shifted to B-107, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase I, New Delhi. He has also stated that since 1998, he worked on daily wages and earned Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day, whenever he got employment.
72. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, claimant has examined himself as WW-9 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-9/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the English language and LIR no. 46379/1999 61/100 stated that factory of management no. 1 is not closed. He has admitted that he does not have any proof to prove that the factory is functioning. He has admitted it to be correct that after closure of the factory he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the management no. 1 in the Labour Office, Okhla, He also admitted that he did not approach to the management for the payment of his legal dues consequent to the closure of the factory w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues with the closure of the factory, even now.
73. Shri Arjun Sharma, claimant has examined himself as WW-10 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-10/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has also stated that he does not know the English language and stated that factory of management no. 1 is not closed. It is LIR no. 46379/1999 62/100 functioning at B-107, Okhla, Phase I. He has also admitted that he does not have any proof to prove that factory is functioning. He has admitted that after closure of the factory, he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the management no. 1 in the Labour Office, Okhla. He has also stated that he does not have any proof regarding the functioning of the factory at B-107, Okhla Phase I and also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues, as result of closure of the factory, even now.
74. Shri Ranjit Sharma, claimant has examined himself as WW-11 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-11/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the English language. He has also stated that factory of management no. 1 is not closed, at the same time, he has admitted that he does not LIR no. 46379/1999 63/100 have any proof to prove the functioning of the factory. He has admitted that after closure of the factory, he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the management no. 1 in the Labour Office, Okhla. He did not approach to the management for the payment of his legal dues consequent to the closure of the factory w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues, as result of closure of the factory, even now before this Court.
75. Shri Govind Tiwari, claimant has examined himself as WW-12 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-12/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the English language. He does not know the contents of his affidavit given in evidence. He has admitted it to be correct that the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998. LIR no. 46379/1999 64/100 He has admitted that after closure of the factory he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the management no. 1 in the Labour Office. He has also admitted that he did not approach to the management for the payment of his legal dues consequent to the closure of the factory w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues, as result of closure of the factory even now.
76. Shri Dal Singar, claimant has examined himself as WW- 13 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-13/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the English language. He does not know the contents of his affidavit. He has also stated that the factory is not closed. He has stated that he does not know, if the factory was closed on dated LIR no. 46379/1999 65/100 13.10.1998 and stated that it may be working somewhere. He has admitted that he did not approach to the management for the payment of his legal dues, as he was interested for reemployment and stated that even today he is not ready to accept his legal dues, as result of closure of the factory. He has admitted that he does not have documentary evidence to prove the allegation that he worked in the two factories namely Subhash Engineering Works and International Engineering Company. He has stated that he is not aware that if, the factories were sealed by the government.
77. This claimant Dal Singar (WW-13) after remanding of the case has again examined himself vide his affidavit Ex. WW13/A-1 on dated 19.08.2019 and he has deposed therein that the management had filed authority letter to CCS Project, Sikri, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana under the previous name of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. and further deposed that the management has placed the LIR no. 46379/1999 66/100 Income Tax Audit Report upto 2002 and the same came into knowledge of the workman, which is mentioned in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He has relied upon the Letter of authority dated 21.02.2019 is Ex. WW- 13/17, Photocopy of annual report of Material Movement Pvt. Ltd dated 10.09.2004, same is Mark X-1 (colly) from page no. 2 to 18, Certified copy of chart of workers worked in the management no.1 and 2 prepared by Sh. A.Y. Khan, Advocate of the claimant. Same is mark X-2, Copy of Gazette of minimum wages, same is mark X-3.
78. WW-13 has been cross examined by Ld. Authorized Representative of the managements on dated 19.08.2019 and during his cross-examination, he has denied that at the time of closure of the factory of management no. 1 and 2,he was offered by these managements for compensation @ 15 days wages for every completed year of service. He has admitted that he had received a letter from the management no.1 and 2, vide which, he was called to LIR no. 46379/1999 67/100 collect his full and final, as well as, closure compensation. He has admitted it to be correct that he had refused to take closure compensation only for the reason that he was desirous to do job in the management at that time. He has further admitted it to be correct that Sh. R. P. Malik (previous AR of the management no.1 and 2) had once again offered the closure compensation, as well as, full and final settlement of account during his cross examination, in the year 2003.
79. During his cross examination, he has also admitted it to be correct that he had challenged the award passed by the Predecessor of this court in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had remanded the case to this court and held that it may be determined by the Court, as to what is the compensation payable to the workman in the Section 25FFF (1) of the I.D. Act. He has also admitted that they have not challenged the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Hon'ble LIR no. 46379/1999 68/100 Supreme Court. It is also admitted by this witness that even before this Court, he was not willing to accept the offer of the management no.1 and 2 regarding payment of closure compensation @15 days wages per complete year without the limitation fixed in the proviso to the Section 25FFF(1) of ID Act and stated that now he is claiming full back wages. He has admitted that he does not know the contents of his affidavit Ex. WW13/A-1. He has also admitted it to be correct that on Ex. WW-13/17, the names of managements no.1 and 2 are not mentioned. He has denied that WW13/17 does not show that the management no.1 and 2 continued to exist. He has admitted that on their behalf, Ms. Poonam Kaushik, Authorized Representative of Workmen had cross examined to Sh. K.L. Arora (MW2). He has denied that the fact of existence of M/s CCS Projects & Equipments Pvt Ltd was within his knowledge, when his previous AR had cross examined to MW-2. He Has denied that the predecessor of this court and the Hon'ble High Court in their Writ Petition had already decided that M/s CCS Projects and Equipment LIR no. 46379/1999 69/100 Pvt Ltd has no concerned with the managements no.1 and 2 and the copy of annual report Mark X-1 was not filed on record by them. He has denied that mark X-1 was filed by their advocate Sh. Asharaf Ayub Khan in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, who was representing the claimants in the Hon'ble High Court He has denied that he had spoken lie to this effect. He has admitted that the Hon'ble High Court had considered mark X-1, while passing the judgment. He has admitted it to be correct that they did not file any complaint against the management no.1 and 2 that they were not paid the wages as per Minimum Wages Act. He has admitted it to be correct that even at the time of closure of the factory of management no.1 and 2, they were paid more than minimum wages. He has denied that as far as the calculation of compensation is concerned, there is no relevance of mark X.3. He has denied that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held the closure of the factory of management no.1 and 2 to be genuine and real and has remanded the matter for calculation of compensation. He LIR no. 46379/1999 70/100 has denied that he has given a false affidavit.
80. WW-13 is also cross examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management no. 3 and he has denied that he was not appointed by the management no.3. It is admitted by him during his cross examination that earlier the predecessor of this court had held that management no.1 and 2 have no concerned with management no.3. He has admitted that he was appointed by the management no. 1 and 2. He has denied that he has filed false affidavit.
81. Shri Kamleshwar Singh, claimant has examined himself as WW-14 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-14/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the English language. He LIR no. 46379/1999 71/100 does not know about the contents of his affidavit given in the evidence. He has admitted it to be correct that M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has admitted that after closure of the factory he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. in the Labour Office, Okhla, He did not approach to the management for the payment of his legal dues consequent to the closure of the factory. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive legal dues, as result of closure of the factory, even now.
82. Shri Subhash Yadav, claimant has examined himself as WW-15 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-15/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination he has admitted that he did not know English. He did not approach to the management for retrenchment compensation and LIR no. 46379/1999 72/100 stated that according to him three companies were one, as they were sent for work in these three companies. He has admitted that he does not have any document to prove such allegation.
83. Shri Nebi Lal claimant has examined himself as WW-16 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-16/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross- examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has sated that he does not know English language and he does not know the about the contents of his affidavit. He has denied that management was closed w.e.f 13.10.1998. He has further stated that this factory is working is Sikri and Lal Kuan, but, at the same time, he has admitted that he does not have any documentary proof to show that the factory is still functioning. He has also stated that he was not paid bonus for the year 1998 and stated that he was paid bonus LIR no. 46379/1999 73/100 for the year 1997. He has admitted that he does not have any documentary proof of shifting of machinery from the factory of Lal Kuan and he does not want to receive any legal dues even now.
84. Shri Umesh Chander Kanojia has examined himself as WW-17 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-17/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination he has sated he does not know English language and stated that the factory is still working in Sikri in Haryana with the same name. He has also stated that he is not aware whether the factories were sealed by the government on the basis of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He has admitted that he does not have any documentary evidence to support his contention. He has denied that he has deposed falsely. LIR no. 46379/1999 74/100
85. Shri Dinesh Sahni claimant has examined himself as WW-18 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-18/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination he has sated that he did not know English language. He has denied that the factory of the management was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also stated that the factory is running in Sikri in the name & style of CCS Product. He has also stated that he was not paid bonus for the year 1998. He was paid bonus for the year 1997. He has also admitted that he did not go to the management to receive his legal dues and he does not want to receive his legal dues even now.
86. Shri Surender Prasad claimant has examined himself as WW-19 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-19/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was LIR no. 46379/1999 75/100 also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination he has sated that he did not know English language. He has also stated that the factory is working in Sikri and Lal Quan. He has admitted that he does not have any documentary proof to show that factory is still functioning. He has also stated that he was not paid bonus for the year 1998. He was paid bonus for the year 1997. He has denied that factory was closed. He has also stated that he did not approach to the management to receive his legal dues and states that he does not want to receive his legal dues, even now.
87. Shri Virender Kumar claimant has examined himself as WW-20 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-20/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has sated that he did not know English language. He was LIR no. 46379/1999 76/100 retrenched in the month of May 1998. He does not remember the exact date of retrenchment. He has admitted that he did not approach to the management for retrenchment compensation and other dues.
88. Shri Kishan Pal claimant has examined himself as WW- 21 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-21/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has sated that he did not know English language and he does not know the contents of his affidavit. He has admitted that factory was closed on dated 13.10.1998 and the factory is still lying closed. He has also admitted that he did not go to the management after closed of the factory. He has also stated that he is not interested to take his legal dues, even now.
LIR no. 46379/1999 77/100
89. Shri Hasan Imam claimant has examined himself as WW-22 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-22/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination he has sated that he does not know English language and he does not know about the contents of the affidavit given in evidence. He has admitted it to be correct that M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998 and some of the workers have settled their claims and he was paid bonus for the year 1997-1998 by the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. in the Labour Office and he is not ready to receive his legal dues, even now.
90. Shri Balkeshwar Chauhan claimant has examined himself as WW-23 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-23/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. LIR no. 46379/1999 78/100 He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross- examination, he has sated that he did not know English language and does not know about the contents of his affidavit given in evidence. He has also stated that the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. is not closed but, he has admitted that he does not have any documentary proof to show that M/s Material Movement Pvt.Ltd. is still continuing.
91. Shri Sudama Giri claimant has examined himself as WW-24 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-24/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has sated that he does not know English language and does not know about the contents of his affidavit given in evidence. He did not go to the management to receive his legal dues LIR no. 46379/1999 79/100 after closure of factory and he is not interested to receive his legal dues, even now, as he is interested in his reinstatement in the management.
92. Shri Udai Kant Jha claimant has examined himself as WW-25 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-25/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has sated that he does not know English language He was suspended in July 1998. He has admitted that he never worked in the M/s Subhash Engineering Works (management no. 3) and International Engineering Works. He has admitted it to be correct that factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998. He has also admitted that he did not go to the management for the payment of his legal dues. He has admitted that he is not interested to accept his legal dues, even if, he is paid the same with LIR no. 46379/1999 80/100 interest at the bank rate.
93. Shri Murari Singh claimant has examined himself as WW-26 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-26/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination he has admitted that he does not know English language. He has admitted that the factory of the management situated near Oriental Structural Plant was closed and stated that the factory is run by the management in Sikri in Haryana, but, he does not have any documentary proof in support of his allegations. He has also admitted that he did not go to the management after 13.10.1998 to get his legal dues. He has admitted that he is not ready to receive legal dues, as, he is interested in his reinstatement.
94. Shri Prem Naraian claimant has examined himself as LIR no. 46379/1999 81/100 WW-27 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-27/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know English language. He does not know the contents of his affidavit given in the evidence. He has stated that his services were terminated on 13.10.1998 and stated that when his services were terminated, the factory was functioning, but, he does not have any document to prove the same. He has admitted he did not go to the management to receive his legal dues and he is still not willing to receive his legal dues. He does not have documentary evidence to prove his allegations.
95. Shri Pitamber claimant has examined himself as WW- 28 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-28/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also LIR no. 46379/1999 82/100 cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know English language. He is not aware about the contents of his affidavit given in the evidence. He did not approach to the management to get his legal dues. He is still not willing to receive his legal dues, even if, offered by the management. He has admitted that he does not have any documentary evidence to prove his allegations and he does not have any documentary proof regarding the transfer from M/s Material Movement to two other factories viz. Subhash Engineering Works and International Engineering. He has admitted it to be correct that the factory was closed on 13.10.1998. He has also stated that he went to the management to get his legal dues, but, the same were not paid. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive his legal dues. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
96. Shri Ram Avtar claimant has examined himself as WW- LIR no. 46379/1999 83/100
29 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-29/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has also relied upon the documents Ex. WW-1/1 to Ex. WW-1/16. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management and during his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know English language. He does not know about the contents of his affidavit given in the evidence. He does not know the date of termination of his services. He has admitted it to be correct that at the time of closure of the factory on dated 31.10.1998, the factory was functioning at village Tuglakabad, near Oriental Structural Plant, New Delhi. He has admitted that factory is not functioning at the said address. He has also admitted that he does not have any documentary proof to prove his allegations. He has also stated that he is not ready to receive his legal dues, which are in consequence to the closure of the factory in the year 1998. He has admitted that he did not search any job and he is not interested to receive his legal dues.
LIR no. 46379/1999 84/100
97. After remanding the matter to this Court by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Shri Harinder Chauhan has examined himself as WW-30 vide his affidavit Ex. WW-30/A. His testimony is also identical to the testimony of WW-1. He has relied upon the documents i.e. Copy of Aadhar card is Ex. WW-30/1, Copy of ESI Card is Ex. WW-30/2, Copy of ESI Card with family is Ex. WW-30/3,Copy of pay slip for the month of December 1990 is Ex. WW-30/4,Copy of pay slip for the month of November 1995 is Ex. WW-30/5,Copy of pay slip for the month of January 1996 is Ex. WW-30/6,Copy of pay slip for the month of November 1996 is Ex. WW- 30/7,Copy of pay slip for the month of October 1997 is Ex.WW-30/8.
98. WW-30 has been cross examined by Ld. Authorized Representative for the management no. 1 and 2 and during his cross-examination he has denied that he joined the management no 1 and 2 on 01.02.1986. He further stated LIR no. 46379/1999 85/100 that he joined the management no. 1 and 2 in the year 1985, but, he was made permanent by these managements on 01.01.1986.
99. He has admitted that in his ESI card Ex. WW-30/2, his date of appointment is mentioned as 01.02.1986. It is denied by him that he never worked in the factory of management no. 1 and 2 prior to 01.02.1986 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 2090/-.
100. He has admitted that he has filed the case in the Labour Court and challenge the closure of management no. 1 and 2. It is denied by him that he was ever offered by the factory of management no. 1 and 2 in the Labour office and also in this court to take his compensation during the pendency of this case. It is further denied by him that at the time of closure of the factory of management no. 1 and 2 at Badarpur , an accountant was made to sit in the said factory to give them compensation on account of closure of factory. LIR no. 46379/1999 86/100
101. He has denied that the notice Ex. WW1/8 was affixed on the notice board of the factory of management no.1 and 2 and copy thereof was sent to him and his union. It is further denied by him during his cross examination that the copy of Ex. MW1/6 was also sent to his union and all the workmen were asked by the management to collect their dues from the factory of management no.1 and 2. It is further denied by him that he had received the copy of the letter Ex. MW1/7 at his address.
102. It is further denied by him that a public notice Ex. MW1/8 was published, vide which, the workmen in the factory of management no.1 and 2 at Badarpur were asked to take dues from the management no.1 and 2. It is further denied by him that the previous authorized representative of the management no.1 and 2 had offered to all the 29 workmen, during their cross examination, to take their compensation on account of closure of the factory of LIR no. 46379/1999 87/100 management no.1 and 2 at Badarpur and all those workmen had refused to take compensation. He has admitted that he is not ready to accept the compensation offered to him by the Ld. Authorized Representative of management no. 1 and 2 in the Court on account of the closure even at the time of his evidence in this Court. He has admitted that he does not want to take closure compensation @ 15 days for each complete year of his services till the closure of the factory of the M/s Material Movement on dated 13.10.1998. He has admitted that he was not employee of the management no. 3. He has denied that he has filed false affidavit or that he has deposed falsely.
103. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimants has submitted that the services of the claimants were illegally terminated by M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) and closure of these managements is sham and submitted that Kishan Lal Arora LIR no. 46379/1999 88/100 and Vijay Arora are running the business in the name of CCS Projects and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and submitted that the claimants may be reinstated with full back wages in CCS Projects and Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
104. The claimants have claimed that they have worked in the management no. 1, 2 and 3 interchangeably. The management no. 3 (M/s Subhash Engineering Works) has denied the relationship of employer and employees between the management no. 3 and the claimants and the claimants have failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to show that they have worked in the management no. 3 at any point of time and one of the claimants Dal Singar during their cross-examination have admitted that he was appointed by management no. 1 and 2 and WW-30 Harvinder Singh has also admitted during his cross- examination that he was not employee of management no.
3. So, in the absence of any cogent documentary proof, it is held that the claimants have failed to prove on record that LIR no. 46379/1999 89/100 they were employees of the management no. 3. So, no relief can be granted to the claimants against management no. 3.
105. Since, from the unimpeached testimony of MW-1 and unrebutted documents proved on record by MW-1, it is proved on the record that the factory of the M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998 and some of the claimants during their cross-examination have admitted that the factory of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) was closed on dated 13.10.1998, in view of unimpeached testimony of MW-1 and in view of admission made by the claimants during their cross-examination that the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) was closed on dated 13.10.1998, it is held that the management has successfully proved on the record that the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) at Badarpur, wherein, the claimants were working, LIR no. 46379/1999 90/100 has been permanently closed on dated 13.10.1998.
106. The claimants have nowhere pleaded in their statements of claim or affidavits that they have ever worked in the CCS Projects & Equipments Pvt. Ltd. nor it is party to the present lis. From the testimony of MW-2, namely, Shri Kishan Lal Arora, it is proved on the record that the previous directors of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) had sold their shares in the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) on dated 18.06.1998, vide agreement Ex. MW-2/1 and after selling of their entire shares in the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) they ceased to have any control over the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2). Even, if the previous directors of the M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) are running another factory in the name of CCS Projects and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. in Haryana, no relief for reinstating the claimant in CCS Projects & Equipments Pvt. Ltd. of the previous LIR no. 46379/1999 91/100 directors of the M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) can be granted as, it is proved on the record that the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2)wherein, the claimants were working was closed on dated 13.10.1998 and prior to its closure, the notice was also served and affixed on dated 13.08.1998 and at the time of closure of the factory, Shri Punish Khanna and Shri Subhash Chand Arora were the directors of M/s Material Movements Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) and in view of closure of the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) the relief of reinstatement of claimant in a closed factory can not be granted.
107. Since, The claimants have claimed that their services have been illegally and unjustifably terminated by the managements. So, it was incumbent on the part of the claimants to prove this fact. Since, the claimants, who have been examined as WW-13, WW-21, WW-22, WW-25, WW-28 LIR no. 46379/1999 92/100 and WW-29, during their cross-examination have categorically admitted that M/s Malterial Movement Pvt. Ltd. was closed w.e.f. 13.10.1998. Thus, the testimony of the claimants are self contradictory, vague and inconsistent to the testimony of other claimants. Whereas, the claimants , who have examined themselves as WW-2, WW-3, WW-4, WW-5, WW-6, WW-9, WW-10 and WW-11 during their cross- examination have admitted that after the closure of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd., they have received the bonus, thus, these claimants have also admitted that the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. was closed, so, the testimonies of the claimants do not inspire any confidence.
108. The claimants have failed to prove on record that their services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiable by the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and
2) and since it is proved on the record that it is the case of the closure of the factory of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) wherein, the claimants were LIR no. 46379/1999 93/100 working. So, in view of the closure of the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) the services of the claimants had automatically came to an end.
109. In view of failure on the part of the claimants to prove that their services have been illegally and unjustifiable terminated by the management, issue no. 2 is decided against the claimants.
110. Since, it is proved on the record that the factory of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) wherein, the claimants were working has been closed on 13.10.1998 and this management (M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd.) has given the reasons for its closure in the annexure to Ex. MW-1/1.
111. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimants have submitted that the closure of the factory of the management is sham. No doubt that the management has LIR no. 46379/1999 94/100 taken the plea that in view of financial depression and shrinking of orders, the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) has to closed its factory at Badarpur.
112. In the considered opinion of this Court, financial difficulty or financial depression cannot be a ground to justify the closure, but, from the testimony of MW-1, documents relied upon by him and the (statement of reasons) annexure to Ex. MW-1/1, it is inferred that in the hostile atmosphere created by the claimants in the factory of the management M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2), detailed reasons whereof are mentioned in Axxexure to Ex. MW-1/1, the management had to closed its factory on account of unavoidable circumstances, which were beyond of its control.
113. As per the proviso to Section 25 FFF (1) of Industrial Dispute Act, where an undertaking is closed down on LIR no. 46379/1999 95/100 account of unavoidable circumstances beyond of control of the employer, the compensation to the workman is required to be paid under Clause (b) of Section 25 which shall not exceed his average pay for three months.
114. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) has submitted that the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) is ready to pay the compensation of the claimants on account of closure of factory, as per provision of Section 25 FFF(1) of Industrial Dispute Act.
115. If such submissions of the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) are accepted, then, the great prejudice will be caused to the claimants, who have not completed six years of service in this management on dated 13.10.1998. As despite of lengthy litigation for a period of about two decades, if they are not given the compensation, LIR no. 46379/1999 96/100 to which they are entitled to, that will be an injustice to them. Since, this Court has come to the conclusion that the factory of the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) was closed on account of unavoidable circumstances, which were beyond of the control of the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2), so, the claimant who had not completed six years of their services on the date of closure on dated 13.10.1998, they are entitled to get compensation on closure of the factory of M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2), as per Proviso to Section 25 FFF (1) of Industrial Dispute Act, which shall be for a period of the three months of their average pay.
116. Since, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) has submitted that this management is ready to pay the compensation to the claimants, as per the Provisions of Section 25 FFF(1) of Industrial Dispute Act. In view of such LIR no. 46379/1999 97/100 submission, the claimants who had worked in the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) for a period of more than six years in the Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2), those claimants are entitled to get the compensation on closure of the factory of the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) as per the provision of Section 25 FFF (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, as if the claimants have been retrenched. The Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants, in view of closure of factory equivalent to the fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service till 13.10.1998, as per Minimum Wages Act, within 30 days from the date of publication of award.
117. Since, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the claimants has submitted that the posts and dates of appointments of all the claimants are mentioned in Annexure P-2, copy whereof is Mark X-2, so, for the purpose LIR no. 46379/1999 98/100 of computation of period of compensation for the claimants, their posts and dates of appointments shall be considered therefrom, as the posts and dates of appointments of the claimants are mentioned in Mark X-2 except the date of appointment of WW-26 Murari Singh and claimant Murari Singh has mentioned his date of appointment as 01.09.1992 and such dates of appointment of the claimant are not disputed by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) and since the claimant Srikant had expired during the pendency of the present matter and his LRs were also brought on the record, so, to the LRs of the deceased claimant Srikant are also entitled to get the compensation equivalent to the other claimants. The Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. (management no. 1 and 2) is directed to co-operate to the claimants in getting of their amount of PF.
118. Since the Ld. Authorized Representatives for the claimants and M/s Material Movement Pvt. Ltd. LIR no. 46379/1999 99/100 (management no. 1 and 2) have submitted that claimants Gyan Chand Jha, Swami Nath and Uday Kant Jha have settled the matters out of the Court and they have already taken the settled amount. So, they will not be entitled to get any benefit of this award.
119. In the abovesaid terms, reference is answered. A copy of the award be sent to the Office of 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 after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
PAWAN Digitally signed
by PAWAN
KUMAR KUMAR MATTO
Date: 2019.09.16
MATTO 16:33:55 +0530
Dictated & Announced in (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO)
Open Court on 16.09.2019 PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT-IX/ROUSE
AVENUE COURT NEW DELHI
LIR no. 46379/1999 100/100