Delhi District Court
Ms. Garima Bhatia vs M/S Canam Consultants Limited on 14 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
D.I.D. No. : 134A/09
Date of Institution of the case : 11.12.2008
Date on which reserved for Award : 15.02.2013
Date on which Award is passed : 14.03.2013
Unique ID no. 02402C0845972008
Ms. Garima Bhatia, W/o Shri Neeraj Bhatia,
R/o M108, Observatory Compound,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi110003. .................Workman
Versus
M/s Canam Consultants Limited,
Office No.113, First Floor,
New Delhi House, Bararkhamba Road,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001. ...............Management
AWARD
The workman Ms. Garima Bhatia, raised an industrial
dispute regarding the termination of her services by the management
of M/s Canam Consultants Limited. Direct statement of claim was
filed by the workman in the court. In the statement of claim, it is
stated by the workman that the workman joined the management on
04.03.2008 as a Front Desk cum Documentation Executive at the
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 1 out of 28
Delhi Branch at Office No.113, First Floor, New Delhi House,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi110001 under the
Delhi Branch Manager, Ms. Ganga D.Dandapani; that Mr. Sukhmeet
Grewal & Mr. Anuraj Sandhu were the two directors of the said
company; that the directors were based at the head office of the said
company at SCO 8384, Sector17D, Chandigarh; that the workman
was appointed at the salary of Rs. 9,000/ per month; that the salary of
the workman was credited to the salary A/c no. 000701617339 of the
workman with ICICI Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi from
company A/c no. 990566 at ICICI Bank, Chandigarh; that since the
workman was on very bad terms with her husband for a long time, the
husband of the workman in a fit of anger and to get the services of his
wife/workman terminated, sent an email from the private Email
ID:[email protected] to the management at the official E
mail ID: [email protected] on 17.06.2008 and when the
workman telephoned at the Delhi office of the management on
18.06.2008 at about 5.00 P.M. to inform them/the management that
the workman could not come on 18.06.2008 in the office due to some
serious domestic problem (in fact, the workman was kept being
tortured and beaten the whole day on 18.06.2008), the said Delhi
Branch Manager, Ms. Ganga D.Dandapani replied to the workman
that her resignation has reached the office whereas the said
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 2 out of 28
resignation had been sent by the husband of the workman to get the
services of the workman/wife terminated intentionally and the said
resignation was also having no signature of the workman; that in fact,
the resignation is valid only when it is signed by the
workman/employee; that due to sudden termination of the workman
by the management is really unfortunate and is also a matter of
great concern for the workman and the workman has been mentally
and psychologically harassed and is also highly anxious and wants to
be reinstated/reengaged in her services/employment; that the
appointment letter of the workman is in the custody of her husband
and the workman is fully sure that the same could have been
destroyed by her husband due to which the workman is helpless to
produce the same before this Hon'ble Court; that however, an
original signed copy of the appointment letter also lies in possession
with the said company; that the appointment letter included a clause
according to which fifty per cent of the workman's salary was to be
deducted during the probation period, which was to be refunded by
the company at the end of six months of employment, on the
completion of probation; that however, voluntarily the company
decided not to implement the clause mentioned in the said
appointment letter due to the efficiency of the workman; that the
workman was entrusted with additional duties at other branches of the
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 3 out of 28
company; that the workman also consulted by the head office staff in
issues of great concern to the company; that in fact the workman had
been on good terms with all the staff both at Delhi branch and head
office of the said company; that the workman was also selected to
work as Assistant Accountant for the Delhi Branch Office on the
request of the Delhi Office Administrator, Ms. Erica D' Souza; that
the workman has been a devoted/dedicated employee as the workman
also delivered financial support to the Delhi Branch Office in event
of vital need; that the said Delhi Branch Manager, Ms. Ganga D.
Dandapani also appreciated the workman for her good work; that the
said company has not issued the workman any termination letter;
that the workman clarified to the representatives of the company that
the resignation was not sent by the workman but her spouse; that
however, the representatives of the said company took no interest
towards a fair judgment/action for any kind of relief to the workman,
hence she has claimed reinstatement with full back wages and other
consequential benefits.
Notice of filing of the statement of claim was sent to the
management who appeared and contested the claim filed by the
workman by filing its written statement. In the written statement filed
by the management it has taken the preliminary objections that the
claim under reply is not maintainable since neither the claimant falls
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 4 out of 28
under the definition of workman nor the dispute is an industrial
dispute; that the management is a consultancy company and the
workman was working as Documentation executive, who left the
organization by her own will by forwarding her resignation letter;
that the resignation letter has been duly accepted by the management
and had cleared all her legitimate dues; that hence the present claim is
not maintainable and liable to be rejected outrightly; that the claim
under reply of the workman is not maintainable as she has not come
with clean hands and she is guilty of concealment and suppression of
material facts from this Hon'ble Court, hence the present claim is
liable to be dismissed; that the present claim is an utterly dishonest
and malafide device being adopted by the workman and the same is
contrary to the facts and self contradictory; that the workman has
filed and email dated 19.06.2008 along with the statement of claim;
that in the said email the workman stated that she could not attend the
office on 18.06.2008 since she was in high fever, whereas, now she
stated that she could not come on 18.06.2008 in the office due to
some serious domestic problem and in fact, she was kept being
tortured and beaten the whole day on 18.06.2008; that both the
statements are self contrary and do not contain any truth; that thus the
present claim is liable to be rejected on this score only; that the
contents of the present claim are a figment of imagination,
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 5 out of 28
concoction of facts, besides embodying deliberate misstatements,
prevarication and innuendos; that the said claim is a blatant and a
flagrant endeavor as a part of a dubious and nefarious strategy to
harass the management through fraudulent, deceptive and deceitful
means, which is not sustainable under the law, hence the present
claim is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits it is denied for
the want of knowledge that the workman was on very bad terms with
her husband for a very long time and the husband of the workman in
a fit of anger and to get the services of his wife/workman terminated,
sent an email from the private Email ID:[email protected]
to the management at the official email ID :
[email protected] on 17.06.2008; that it was denied that
when the workman telephoned at the Delhi office of the management
on 18.06.2008 at about 5.00 P.M. to inform the management that the
workman could not come on 18.06.2008 in the office due to some
serious domestic problem, the said Delhi Branch Manager, Ms.
Ganga D.Dandapani replied to the workman that her resignation has
reached the office, whereas the said resignation was also having no
signatures of the workman; that it was denied that in fact the
resignation is valid only when it is signed by the workman/employee;
that the workman has tried to mislead this Hon'ble Court by twisting
the facts and circumstances; that the workman is deposing a
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 6 out of 28
statement, which is contrary to the statement made by her vide her
email dated 19.06.2008; that in the said email she stated that she
could not attend the office since she was in high fever, whereas, now
she stated that she could not come on 18.06.2008 in the office due to
some serious domestic problem and in fact, she was kept being
tortured and beaten the whole day on 18.06.2008; that both the
statements are self contrary and do not contain any truth; that the
workman has voluntarily sent her letter of resignation to the
management through her personal email, which was duly accepted
and the workman was informed accordingly; that the workman was
on probation as per her appointment letter; that now the workman
under her oblique motive to harass the management has approached
to this Hon'ble Court without any cause of action and justifiable
reason; that it was denied that in this way due to the sudden
termination of the workman by the management is really unfortunate
and is also a matter of great concern for the workman and the
workman has been mentally and psychological harassed and is also
highly anxious and wants to be reinstated/reengaged in her
service/employment; that the management has never terminated the
services of the workman; that the workman has voluntarily resigned
from the services, which was duly accepted by the management at the
request of the workman; that it was denied for the want of knowledge
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 7 out of 28
that the appointment letter of the workman is in the custody of her
husband and the workman is fully sure that the same could have been
destroyed by her husband due to which the workman is helpless to
produce the same before the Hon'ble Court; that it was not denied
that an original signed copy of the appointment letter also lies in
possession with the said company; that the appointment letter
included a clause according to which fifty per cent of the workman's
salary was to be deducted during the probation period, which has to
be refunded by the company at the end of six months of the
employment, on the completion of probation period but it was
vehemently denied that voluntarily, the company decided not to
implement the clause mentioned in the said appointment letter due to
the efficiency of the workman; that the workman herself had resigned
from the job during the period of probation; that thus the question of
implementation of the said clause does not arise, since the same was
subject to the appraisal report of the work performed by the workman
during the probation period of six months; that it was denied that the
workman was entrusted with additional duties at other branches of
the company; that it was also denied that the workman was consulted
by the head office in issues of great concern to the company; that it
was denied that the workman had been on good terms with all the
staff both at Delhi Branch and Head office of the said company; that it
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 8 out of 28
was denied that the workman was also selected to work as Assistant
Accountant for the Delhi Branch Office on the request of the Delhi
Office Administrator, Ms. Erica D 'Souza; that it was denied that the
workman had been a devoted/dedicated employee as the workman
also delivered financial support to the Delhi Branch Office in event of
vital need; that it was denied that the said Delhi Branch Manager,
Ms. Ganga D. Dandapani also appreciated the workman for her good
work; that it was denied that the workman clarified to the
representative of the company that the resignation was not sent by
the workman but her spouse; that it was denied that the
representatives of the said company took no interest towards a fair
judgment/action for any kind of relief to the workman. All other
allegations are denied by the management. Hence, it is prayed that the
statement of claim be dismissed.
In rejoinder to the written statement of the management, all
the averments of the management are denied and that of statement of
claim are reaffirmed by the workman.
On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 10.03.2010,
the following issues were framed:
1.Whether the workman herself has resigned as alleged by the management?
2. Whether the workman was terminated by the management D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 9 out of 28 illegally or unjustifiably?
3. Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed and the case was adjourned for workman evidence.
In support of her case, workman herself appeared as WW1, filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A as also relied upon photocopies of documents Mark WW1/A to Mark WW1/I in workman evidence, on record. In her affidavit, she has reiterated the averments of her statement of claim.
After examining herself as WW1, the workman has closed her workman evidence, on record.
In support of its defence, the management has examined Sh. Ram Chander, Accountant of the management as MW1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A as also relied upon document Mark A in the management evidence, on record. In his affidavit by way of evidence, he has reiterated the averments of the written statement.
After examining MW1, evidence on behalf of the management has been closed, on record.
Final arguments have been heard. Workman has also filed written submissions, on record as also relied upon citations viz.
(1) Special Civil Application No. 436 of 1996 and Special Civil D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 10 out of 28 Application No. 4101 of 1996 Haresh P Pandya vs. Mr. BA Vaishnav (Gujarat High Court) (2) 2002 (95) FLR 595, (2003) I LLJ 256 Raj, State of Rajasthan and Ors vs. Mahendra Joshi and Anr. (Rajashthan High Court) (3) 2002 (95) FLR 299, (2002) II LLJ 493 Ker, Unnikrishna Pillai R.vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Kerala High Court) (4) Ram Narain vs. Management of Delhi State Civil (Delhi High Court) (5) Appeal (Civil) 7 of 2006, Regional Manager, S.B.I vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari (Supreme Court of India) (6) 132 (2006) DLT 571 PWD Thr.Dy.Dir.Horticulture vs.Satya Pal (Delhi High Court) (7) (1995) IIILLJ 356 Bom, Air Corporation Employees Union vs. Air India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) (8) W.P. (C) 2211/1998, Food Craft Institute vs. Rameshwar Sharma & Anr. (Delhi High Court) (9) Appeal (Civil) 4626 of 2006 Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ram Sahai & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) (10) 134 (2006) DLT 49, Food Craft Institute vs. Rameshwar Sharma & Anr. (Delhi High Court) (11)W.P. No. 9697/2000, Smt. K. Nagarathnam Vs. Hindustan Fluorocarbons Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh High Court) D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 11 out of 28 (12)W.P. No. 585/2010, Tuhin Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) (13) Writ C. No. 49306/2004, Chief Engineer and Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Anr.
(14) C.W.P No. 14863/1993, Sudarshan Kumar Gupta Vs. The Food Corporation of India. (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) AR for the management has also filed written submissions, in support of his submissions, on record.
My findings on the issues are as follows: Issue no.1.
It is seen from the record that the workman has appeared in her workman evidence as WW1, filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW1/A as also relied upon photocopies of documents Mark WW1/A to Mark WW1/I, on record. In her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. WW1/A, she has reiterated the contents of her statement of claim and has deposed to the effect that she was the workman in the above matter, conversant with the facts of the case and competent to depose the affidavit; that the management has all the contact details of the workman viz. two mobile numbers, residential address and email ID on which all the representatives of the company communicated with her in relation to the acceptance of the 'Forged Resignation Letter' and on other occasions; the management claims to D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 12 out of 28 be receiving communication from the same email ID from which the resignation was sent, however, this communication was not made by the workman because there was a FIR made in this regard that her spouse took control of her email ID on 17th June, 2008 and sent resignation from the same; that since then, the workman has no control on this email ID viz. canam.garima@gmai l.
com;
that the said FIR mentioned in Para no. 3 was based on the confession of crime by the workman's spouse to the management by means of an email sent to the official email ID of the Director, Mr. Anuraj Sandhu viz. [email protected] and the common email ID of Delhi Branch staff viz. [email protected]; that the workman made sincere efforts to communicate the facts to all the representatives of the company but they refused to hear her; that the workman communicated an informal notice to the company to save the time of this Hon'ble Court, so that the dispute is settled without taking the matters to the court but once again no initiative was taken by the management; that the said informal notice mentioned in para 6 was sent on 27.11.2008 by a registered Post to the Head Office of the company in Chandigarh ; that the workman also mentioned a claim of Rs. 50 Lacs as compensation; that the management furnished an appointment letter dated 26.02.2008, which is false and fabricated; that the workman responded to the company's advertisement in the D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 13 out of 28 Times of India, Delhi dated 27th February, 2008; that the workman walked in for interview on 29th February, 2008; that on the same day, the workman also made an entry in the Delhi Branch Office's walk in register; that since the workman appeared for the interview on 29.02.2008 for the first time, the appointment letter dated 26.02.2008 is even before the advertisement was published; that the senior management at the head office of the company in Chandigarh possesses an original Appointment Letter signed by either parties, they could easily produce a photocopy of the same and there is no reason so as to why such an unclear/deceitful copy of the same has been furnished; that the workman has been in constant touch with the representatives of the company with effect from the evening of 17th June, 2008; that on 17th June, 2008 at about 9 PM, the workman spoke to the Delhi Branch Manager by the means of a phone call mentioning that her spouse was beating her up to give away her email ID's password and requested her for help; that the said Delhi Branch Manager refused bluntly saying that she could do nothing and neither sought help from the police; that on 18th June, 2008 by means of a phone call when the workman spoke to Delhi Branch Manager about her ill health due to which she was on leave on the same day on account of severe physical abuse; that she was informed about her resignation received by the management; that on 12th July, 2008, the D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 14 out of 28 workman visited the Delhi Branch to collect her salary for the 17 working days in June, 2008; that the workman still tried to communicate the facts but the behaviour of the said Delhi Branch Manager was insulting; that she even called the office boy to remove the workman from the office; that on 28th July, 2008 the workman sent a fresh application for job as a Graphic Designer to the Head Office of the company that included a profile CD and a resume; that Col. Bakshi confirmed the receipt of the application over the phone; that it was made clear to Col. Bakshi that the workman is free to relocate to any city, if the company has problems appointing the workman at their Delhi Branch; that this application was returned by the company and reached the workman on 22nd November, 2008; that the management always had the knowledge about the address of the workman; that on 18th September, 2008, the company had organized their business activity in Delhi namely Canadian Admissions Fair and Workshop at the Intercontinental Hotel, Connaught Place; that the workman personally met the Directors of the company; that Mr. Sukhmeet Grewal even refused to recognize the workman; that on 12th December, 2008 the workman filed a case against the company in this Hon'ble Court; that the indifferent attitude of the management continued even after receiving a notice from this Hon'ble Court; that the management is unnecessarily wasting the time of this Hon'ble D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 15 out of 28 Court and causing great mental torture to the workman; that the workman made enough efforts to put the things in place without initiating any legal procedure but the management has proved to be very adamant/rigid; that the Delhi Branch Management was trying to create problems at the workman's new office by making obnoxious calls and asking her to speak to the Directors in order to put undue influence on the workman and to create a situation of confrontation between the workman and the Directors in the Head Office because the Delhi Branch management is unaware of the last communication of the workman with the Directors; that when the workman mentioned this act in this Hon'ble Court, this activity ceased to happen immediately w.e.f. 17th March, 2008; that the Delhi Branch Manager has been constantly degrading/abusive/oppressive towards the workman during her employment; that a few of the instances were that the workman looked like a Bar Girl because of her fringe haircut; that the workman was not as smart as she thought she was; that the workman was harassed for wearing ethnic Indian wear even on the designated days i.e. Wednesday and Saturday; that the workman was not allowed to have her lunch arranged by the company during the Canadian Road Show held on 22nd April, 2008 at the Intercontinental Hotel; that the Delhi Branch Manager repeatedly reminded the workman that in order to be promoted in the said company, she would D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 16 out of 28 be required to please the Directors and the foreign guests as the Delhi Branch Manager herself was doing; that despite of the fact that the workman was a permanent employee of the company as no security was deducted from the workman's salary during the probation period, the management failed to comply with the following rules of the said Appointment letters; that the workman was not provided with her PF Account Number, any time during the employment or later; that the workman was not issued any type of relieving letter; that the workman was not paid one month's salary in lieu of being laid off by the company without any notice; that the salary of the workman w.e.f. 18th June, 2008 till date is due; that the workman seeks a compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore and Fifty Lacs Only) as damages done to her by such a reputed company; that the said company has won the prestigious 'Sadbhavana Award' from the Hon'ble President of India, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma in 2003; that the said company is authorized by the Ministry of Labour; that the said company is one of the first CSIC (Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants) members a very prestigious membership in the Immigration Industry.
Mark WW1/A being copies of alleged email dated Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 05:15 PM of the workman to the management as also email dated Friday, June 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 17 out of 28 of the management to the workman; Mark WW1/B being copy of an alleged complaint dated 17.11.2008 of the workman against her husband Sh. Neeraj Bhatia for sending her resignation to her office without her consent to the SHO PS Vasant Vihar, New Delhi; Mark WW1/C being copy of alleged email dated Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 12:59 P.M of Sh. Neeraj Bhatia, husband of the workman to the management; Mark WW1/D being copy of an alleged notice dated 27.11.2008 of the workman to the management; Mark WW1/E being copy of its alleged postal receipt and Mark WW1/F to WW1/I being copies of certain alleged advertisements of the management taken out in daily newspapers.
This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf of the management in workman evidence in which she has deposed that at the time when she had joined the services of the management, she was a Graduate; that presently she was a student of LLB course; that her employment with the management was not her first employment; that previous to the same, she was working in the company of her husband; that she had left her previous employment in order to join the management which she felt was a better opportunity for the purpose of her livelihood; that she was drawing an amount of Rs. 9,000/ per month as her gross salary during her employment with the management; that she was working at the post D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 18 out of 28 of Front Desk Executive cum Documentation Executive with the management; that presently, she was running her own business since January, 2011; that prior to that she was working at Oasis Resource Management, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi as Vice President since June, 2009; that it was correct that the [email protected] was her email. id. and it was also correct that the resignation letter dated 17.06.2008 was sent by this email.id; that she had not received any acceptance letter from the management of her alleged resignation; that it was wrong to suggest that she had received acceptance letter from the management of her alleged resignation on the said email.id. on 18.06.2008; that after 17.06.2008, she had visited the management once on 11.07.2008 to receive her salary cheque for the month of June, 2008 which was for a period of 17 days; that it was correct to suggest that she had contacted the Directors of the management as also the other officials of the management several times by emails after 17.06.2008 in respect of her grievance and had also met both the Directors in this regard in November, 2008; that the Manager of Delhi Branch of the management where she was working was a lady employee at that time; that it was wrong to suggest that she had leveled false allegations against the Branch Manager, Delhi of the management after receiving email. dated July 08, 2008 from her; that she had sent notice dated 27.11.2008 to the management through D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 19 out of 28 registered post; that she had filed copy of the postal registration receipt, which was dated 27.07.2008; that it was wrong to suggest that she had not sent any notice to the management dated 27.11.2008; that it was wrong to suggest that she had leveled false allegations against the management including the Manager, Delhi Branch for the purpose of pressurizing the management; that it was correct to suggest that she had sent email to the management that she was willing to serve with the management even outside Delhi; that her husband had taken the password of her email.id forcibly from her on 17.06.2008 at his office at Sector 17, Rohini, Delhi; that there was no other person present in the office; that she had not complained regarding the incident to the police at number 100 on that day. Vol. She had telephoned the Delhi Branch Manager of the management in this regard on that day; that she had never complained against her husband prior to 17.06.2008 in any respect whatsoever; that the Delhi Branch Management had contacted her new office during the period February 2009 to June, 2009; that at that time she was employed with YAxis, Nehru Place, New Delhi; that she had joined the said management w.e.f 16.02.2009 and worked there till 06.06.2009; that it was wrong to suggest that the Delhi Branch Management had not contacted her new office as alleged; that it was wrong to suggest that she had filed the present case just to harass and create pressure on the management;
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 20 out of 28 that it was correct to suggest that she had received her dues from the management; that it was wrong to suggest that she had filed a false and concocted claim against the management; that it was wrong to suggest that she was deposing falsely.
Thereafter, workman evidence has been closed, on record. The management has led the evidence of MW1 Sh.
Ramchander, Accountant of the management in management evidence, who has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW1/A as also relied upon document Mark A in the same, on record. In his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. MW1/A, he has reiterated the contents of the written statement of the management and deposed to the effect that he was working as Accountant in the management and was well conversant with the facts of the case and was competent to swear the affidavit and depose before this Hon'ble Court; that the claim filed by the workman is not maintainable as she has not come with clean hands and she was guilty of concealment and suppression of material facts from this Hon'ble Court; that the present claim is an utterly dishonest and malafide device being adopted by the workman and the same is contrary to the facts and self contradictory; that the management never terminated the services of the workman as alleged by her rather she has forwarded an email to inform the management that she is resigning from her services; that the management duly D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 21 out of 28 accepted the resignation and had informed the workman telephonically that her resignation has been accepted; that the workman with a view to harass and blackmail the management had concocted a story that the said resignation was sent by her husband since he was not having good terms with the workman and had beaten the workman and took control of her email ID and sent the said resignation; that the said averment of the workman is an afterthought and deliberate misstatement which can be established even with the bare perusal of the email dated 19.06.2008 sent by the workman to the management, where she says she could not attend the office because she was unwell; that the workman has not mentioned about alleged hacking of the email by her husband or that she was beaten up by her husband; that further the management again informed the workman that her resignation has been accepted; that still the workman kept on harassing the management by regular emails with irrelevant facts; that the workman has voluntarily sent her letter of resignation to the management through her personal Email, which was duly accepted and the workman was informed accordingly; that the workman has nowhere reported of physical beatings and did not even bother to call the 100 number for her help though she was having phone and was calling her number; that she did not even call anyone from her family for help at that time; that the only complaint she made against her D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 22 out of 28 husband is after 5 months on which no FIR has been registered till date; that the claim filed by the workman is further liable to be rejected on the ground that admittedly the workman has received all her legal dues from the management on 11.07.2008; that further, admittedly the workman was not unemployed and was working in various companies and presently running her own business and is earning her livelihood; that the workman with a view to creating pressure on the management has leveled false allegations against the Delhi Branch Manager for harassing her and passing lewd comments; that such allegations are not only false and baseless but also afterthought and deliberately misstated; that the workman on the one hand is maintaining that she respect the Delhi Branch Head, who is a lady, a lot and regularly communicates with her whereas on the other hand she said she passed lewd comments against the workman; that in all the communication with the management, prior to the filing of statement of claim by the workman, she praised the Delhi Branch Head; that the workman has not approached before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands; that the workman has filed a copy of legal notice dated 27.11.2008, which she alleged to have sent through registered post and annexed the photocopy of the postal receipt; that the said postal receipt is dated 27.07.008 and the said fact has been duly admitted by the workman in her cross examination; that therefore, D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 23 out of 28 there is no legal notice sent by the workman to the management as alleged by her in her statement of claim.
Mark A being copy of an alleged email dated 05 th June, 2008 of the workman to the management allegedly in respect of her resignation from her services with the management with immediate effect.
This witness has been cross examined by the workman in the management evidence to the effect that decision regarding the recruitment and termination in respect of the employees of the management is taken by the Managing Directors namely Sh. Sukhmit Garewal and Sh. Anuraj Sandhu in consultation with the HR Manager; that the resignation of the workman had been sent to Sh. Anuraj Sandhu, Sh. A.L, Bakshi, Manager HR and Branch Manager Ms. Ganga Dandapani for action; that the resignation of the workman has been received by Email of the workman; that he did not remember the Email I.D of the workman from which it had been sent; that it was incorrect to suggest that the resignation had not been sent by the workman through her Email I.D.; that he had been authorized to depose on behalf of the management by Sh. Anuraj Sandhu, Managing Director of the management; that it was incorrect to suggest that he was deposing falsely on behalf of the management being its employee.
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 24 out of 28 Thereafter, management evidence has been closed, on record. It is seen from the record that though the management vide Mark A, which is copy of an alleged email dated 05th June, 2008 of the workman to the management in respect of her resignation from her services with the management with immediate effect as alleged by the management, from a perusal of the top of the same has allegedly been sent by the management to its Head Office on 17th June, 2008 at 9:36 P.M, however, which factum has been disputed and controverted by the workman vide the contents of her alleged emails dated Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 05:15 PM to the management Mark WW1/A as also email dated Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 12:59 P.M of one Sh. Neeraj Bhatia, her husband to the management in this regard Mark WW1/C, on record.
It is further seen from the record that vide copy of email dated Friday, June 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM of the management to the workman filed by the workman in her workman evidence as Mark WW1/A, on record, it has been alleged by the management that her resignation has been accepted on the date it has been received, however, no letter/communication to the workman accepting the alleged resignation of the workman vide Mark A as alleged by the management has been proved by the management, on record, either in the cross examination of the workman WW1 in workman evidence or D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 25 out of 28 even in its management evidence, on record and accordingly, it cannot be held that the alleged resignation of services on the part of the workman as alleged by the management vide Mark A, on record, though which has been refuted/disowned by the workman in her workman evidence, as above said, has been accepted on the part of the management against the workman, on record, which is sine qua non for completion of the act of the alleged resignation on the part of the workman as alleged by the management, in law (AIR 1990 SC 1808, JK Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. refers) and accordingly, I find that the management has not been able to discharge the onus, which was upon it to prove the instant issue viz. the alleged resignation of services on the part of the workman as alleged by it, on record. The issue is accordingly, decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
Issue no. 2.
It is seen from the record that admittedly the workman has only been in the employment of the management w.e.f. 04.03.2008 till 18.06.2008 when her services are alleged to have been terminated on the part of the management i.e. for a period of about three and a half months only, which is well below the period of 240 days of service as required under section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 26 out of 28 amended upto date) for being entitled to the protection of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto date) as on the date of the alleged termination of the services of the workman on the part of the management and accordingly, the workman cannot be held to be entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto date) on the date of her alleged termination of services on the part of the management viz. 18.06.2008 as alleged by her in the instant case.
It is further seen from the record that there is no allegation of violation of provisions of Section 25 G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto date) by the workman on the part of the management qua the workman as on the date of her alleged termination of services, as above said, on its part nor any such violation has been proved by the workman in her workman evidence or even in her cross examination of the MW1 in management evidence, on record and accordingly, provisions of Sections 25 G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto date) cannot also be invoked on the part of the workman qua the alleged illegal termination of the services of the workman on the part of the management on the date alleged. I accordingly, also find that the citations cited by the workman in support of her submissions, on the D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 27 out of 28 instant issue, on record, are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In view of my findings, as above, I thus find that the workman has not been able to discharge the onus which was upon her in respect of the instant issue viz. the illegality and/or unjustifiability of the alleged termination of the services of the workman on the part of the management. The instant issue is accordingly, decided against the workman.
Issue no. 3.
In view of my findings on issue no.2, as herein above, the workman is held not entitled to any relief.
The award is passed accordingly. Ahlmad is directed to send six copies of this Award to the appropriate Government. The file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court
on 14.03.2013 (Chandra Gupta)
Presiding Officer Labour CourtX
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
D.I.D. No. 134A/09 Page 28 out of 28