Delhi District Court
Sh. Satya Prakash Singh vs M/S. Ranjeet Brothers Taxi Services on 5 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
PILOT COURT / POLCXVII ROOM NO. 22 :KKD
COURTS: DELHI
LIR No.670/17.
In the matter of :
Sh. Satya Prakash Singh,
Aged 46 years S/o Sh. Lal Singh
R/o H. No. K266, Mangolpuri, Delhi110083.
C/o Delhi Pradesh General Mazdoor Kalyan Morcha,
Chamber No. K32, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi54.
.............Workman
Versus
M/s. Ranjeet Brothers Taxi Services,
Chamber No. 1056/79, WEA, Gurudwara Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
..............Management
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.03.2017.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 18.08.2017.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 05.09.2017.
A W A R D :
1. Vide Order No. F.24(111)/17/Ref./CD/Lab/ 518 dated
10.03.2017, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi, a reference
was sent to this Court with the following terms:
"Whether the workman Sh. Satya Prakash
Singh S/o Sh Lal Singh has abandoned the
job on his own or his services have been
LIR No.670/17. 1/23
terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by
management; and if so, to what relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary
in this respect?"
2. Claimant's case is that he had joined the management
as Driver on 06.03.2005 at the last drawn salary of Rs.15,000/ per
month. He was forced to work with other branch of the
management by the name of M/s. R.B.T.S. Travels Pvt. Ltd.
Management did not provide him appointment letter, attendance
card, leave book, pay slip, casual leave, bonus and overtime
payments etc. When he demanded those facilities orally, the
management got enraged and started harassing by adopting anti
labour practice. When his mother became ill, he insisted for ESI
card and only then, ESI facility was extended on 01.12.2013. His
signatures were obtained by the management on blank papers,
vouchers and registers and his service was terminated on 28.06.16
threatening that if he was again seen in that vicinity, he would be
implicated in false case. Earned wages from 01.01.2016 to
27.06.16 were also withheld. Demand notice sent to management
on 15.07.16 was not replied satisfactorily. He had filed a case
before Conciliation Officer where the management had appeared
and had undertaken on 07.08.16 that it was ready to take him back
on duty. Accordingly, he appeared before the management on
LIR No.670/17. 2/23
08.08.16 and he was allowed to do duty. But in the evening, his
signatures were forcibly obtained on full and final papers by paying
him only Rs.6,200/ despite the fact that he was working with it for
last 12 years. He is jobless since termination.
3. Written statement is to the effect that claimant had
joined it only on 01.03.13 at a salary of Rs.11,000/ per month and
not on 08.03.2005. He was habitual absentee and had done duty
not more than 15 days in May, 2015. He started absenting
unauthorizedly regularly w.e.f. 31.08.15 and did not report even
after letter dated 19.06.16. Pursuant to the instructions of the
Conciliation Officer, the claimant had reported for duty on
08.08.16 and had requested for full and final settlement on the
ground that he was employed with some other employer and hence,
he was paid a sum of Rs.6,200/ as full and final amount. He again
appeared on 09.08.16 for job saying that his service had been
terminated by erstwhile employer. He was again taken back on
duty but did not respond thereafter.
4. Following issues were framed 19.04.17:
1. Whether claimant himself left the job by remaining
unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 31.08.15? OPM
2. As per terms of reference.
LIR No.670/17. 3/23
3. Relief.
5. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant tendered
his affidavit in evidence as Ex. WW1/A mentioning all the facts
stated in the statement of claim. He relied upon following
documents :
1. Ex. WW1/1 is demand notice dated 15.07.2016.
2. Ex. WW1/2 is speed post receipt dated 15.07.2016.
3. Ex. WW1/3 is complaint made before Police
Commissioner/concerned SHO.
4. Ex.WW1/4 and Ex. WW1/5 are the postal receipts.
5. Ex.WW1/6 is complaint made before Assistant Labour
Commissioner.
6. Ex.WW1/7 dated 08.08.2016 is receipt of Rs. 6200/
issued by management.
7. Ex.WW1/8 is complaint dated 09.08.2016 made before
police department.
8. Ex.WW1/9 to Ex. WW/12 are the post receipts dated
09.08.2016 vide which complaints were sent to SHO,
Joint CP, ALC and commissioner.
9. Ex.WW1/13 is Labour Inspector report dated 10.10.2016.
10.Ex.WW1/14 (two pages) is green card issued by
management to its vehicle No. DL1VK8107 driven by
claimant whenever he went beyond Delhi.
11. Ex.WW1/15 is a challan dated 18.02.2010 vide which
vehicle No. DL1VB3990 was challaned by Delhi
Traffic Police.
LIR No.670/17. 4/23
12. Ex.WW1/16 is statement of claimant before Conciliation
Officer.
13. Mark W1 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
14. Mark W2 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
15. Mark W3 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
16. Mark W4 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
17. Mark W5 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
18. Mark W6 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
19. Mark W7 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
20. Mark W8 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
21. Mark W9 is receipt issued by the management vide
which it had given on rent its Tavera car to place driven
by claimant.
LIR No.670/17. 5/23
6. The management examined three witnesses.
MW1 S.K .Malhotra is authorized representative of
management. He repeated the contents of written statement.
MW2 Kunwar Manoj Singh, Assistant Labour
Commissioner deposed that conciliation proceedings were held
before him. On the first date, the management had shown
willingness to take claimant back duty and hence, the claimant was
directed by him to join duty on 08.08.16. He was also interested in
joining duty. The matter was adjourned to 22.08.16 for
compliance. He next deposed that the claimant came to him in the
person before 22.08.16 and told that he was not taken on duty and
that management had given him only Rs.6,200/ in the name of full
and final settlement. He next deposed that none of the party
appeared before him on 22.08.16. He adjourned the matter to
07.09.16. The matter could not be resolved and hence he reported
the case to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who sent the
reference.
MW3 Sh. Ranjeet Singh proprietor of management
deposed that management used to maintain record of its employees
like attendance register, leave register, wages register, bonus
register etc, but the same was missing and due to that reason, he
was not able to produce the same in the Court. He next deposed
that he received a call from Nangloi Metro Station Police on
LIR No.670/17. 6/23
19.07.17 that some documents pertaining to his company were
lying in the premises of Paschim Vihar East Metro Station and that
the same may be collected against receipt. He alongwith his
employee / MW1 went there. Those documents belonged to the
management and hence, he took delivery of the same vide receipt
Ex. MW3/2. He deposed that the collected documents are log book
Ex. MW3/3, management's blank vouchers Ex. MW3/4 and PIN of
debit card of claimant Ex. MW3/5. He relied upon following
documents :
1. Ex. MW3/1 (colly. 54 pages) is computer generated ESI
contribution history from November, 2013 to September,
2015.
2. Ex. MW3/2 is receiving letter from Udyog Nagar Nangloi
Metro Police Station dated 19.07.17.
3. Ex. MW3/3 (colly. 44 pages) is log book / day book register.
4. Ex. MW3/4 (colly. 25 pages) are blank duty vouchers of
management.
5. Ex. MW3/5 is envelope of Indian Overseas Bank and letter
containing PIN of claimant.
6. Ex. MW3/6 is certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Issue No. 1.
7. Ld. ARM argued that claimant was habitual absentee.
He had not worked more than 15 days in May, 2015. From
31.08.15 onwards, he started absenting without permission and
LIR No.670/17. 7/23
did not resume duty despite sending of letter dated 19.06.16 by the
management. He further argued that management could not
produce the documents ordered by this Court as the same were
stolen. He relied upon the documents Ex.MW3/2, Ex.MW3/3,
Ex.MW3/4 and Ex.MW3/5 collected by MW3 from the Police
Station of Nangloi Metro Station. He submitted that the documents
found by the Police at Metro Station included the PIN of debit card
of claimant. Finding of PIN of claimant's debit card with other
documents of the management shows that it was claimant who had
stolen the documents. It becomes clear from log book Ex. MW3/3
that the same was prepared by the claimant in his own handwriting
and it further proves that the claimant had left the job on 31.08.15
as the last entry in log book is of 31.08.15.
Ld. ARW replied that despite clear direction by this
Court vide order dated 26.05.17, the management has not placed on
record attendance and wages register of the claimant from
06.03.2005 to 28.02.13 and due to nonproduction of those
documents, it has failed to prove that the claimant had abandoned
the job on 31.08.15. No letter was even sent by management for
resumption of duty.
8. The management has taken a specific plea in written
statement that claimant had started absenting unauthorizedly w.e.f.
LIR No.670/17. 8/23
31.08.15 and did not respond despite letter dated 19.06.16. It did
not place on record copy of that letter. Even if it is presumed that
letter dated 19.06.16 was sent to the claimant for resumption of
duty, sending of that letter after 10 months from the date of
absence, shows that management came into motion only when the
claimant had started making complaints against it. The
management could have proved absence of the claimant w.e.f.
31.08.15 by placing on record attendance and wage register of its
employees as ordered by this Court vide order dated 26.05.17.
Despite clear directions, the management did not place on record
those documents. Rather, MW3 took plea in his affidavit in
evidence that the same were stolen. The management did not place
on record any DD or FIR to the effect that the documents were
stolen. In roundabout way, the management tried to take plea that
the documents were stolen by the claimant himself because his own
PIN of debit card was handed over to MW3 by PS Nangloi
alongwith documents like log book and blank vouchers of the
management. The management had collected those documents
from PS Nangloi vide receipt Ex. MW3/2 which is bearing seal of
the police station. Finding of PIN of debit card of claimant
alongwith documents of the management, at the most, prove the
fact that it was one and the same person who had left the
documents of the management PIN of debit card of claimant at
LIR No.670/17. 9/23
Paschim Vihar (East) Metro Station. That fact does not prove that
it was claimant who had stolen the documents of the management.
Had that been the conclusion, the police of PS Nangloi would have
definitely registered theft FIR against claimant.
It is the plea of the management that claimant used to
maintain log book Ex. MW3/3 and its last entry is dated 31.08.15
and that entry proves that claimant last worked with it only till
31.08.15. But ARM is totally wrong because the last page of Ex.
MW3/3 shows that the last entry is of 25.07.15 and not of 31.08.15.
The log book does not prove that the claimant had lastly worked
with the management on 31.08.15. Moreover, the management did
not examine any handwriting expert etc. to prove that log book Ex.
MW3/3 was in the handwriting of the claimant. The management
did not move any application for resummoning the claimant for
cross examination on its documents Ex. MW3/3 and Ex. MW3/4.
Due to these reasons, the management has failed to prove that the
log book Ex. MW3/3 is in the handwriting of the claimant.
9. In view of above discussion, this issue is decided in
favour of claimant and against the management.
Issue No. 2.
10. This issue comprises of two parts. The first part is of
LIR No.670/17. 10/23
abandonment of service and second is termination of service. The
first part has been discussed in issue No. 1.
11. Ld. ARW argued that the management was not
providing facilities like appointment letter, attendance card, pay
slip and bonus etc. which the claimant was demanding since long
orally. Due to persistent demand, the management got enraged and
started harassing him. His signatures were obtained on blank
papers and service was terminated on 28.06.16.
Ld. ARM replied that service of the claimant was
never terminated as he had already started absenting
unauthorizedly w.e.f. 31.08.15 and did not respond despite letter
dated 19.06.16 for resumption of duty. He next argued that the
management was ready before Conciliation Officer on 07.08.16 to
take claimant back on duty. On the direction of Conciliation
Officer, he had appeared before management on 08.08.16 and
voluntarily settled the case fully and finally in Rs.6,200/ saying
that he was employed somewhere else. He next argued that the
claimant again appeared before the management on 09.08.16 for
job saying that he had been fired by the erstwhile employer.
Taking pity upon him, he was again taken back on job but he did
not respond thereafter.
Ld. ARW replied that the claimant had not settled
LIR No.670/17. 11/23
fully and finally with the management on 08.08.16. Rather, he had
done duty on that date and his signatures were obtained on blank
papers by the management. By that date, he had worked with the
management for more than 12 years and could not have settled
only in Rs.6,200/. As his signatures were obtained on blank
papers, he complained of that fact to MW2 before the scheduled
dated of 22.08.16. He next argued that had he settled fully and
finally on 08.08.16, the management would not have issued him
appointment letter dated 08.08.16.
12. The first plea of the management that there was no
occasion for it to terminate claimant's service on 28.06.16 as he had
abandoned the job on 31.08.15, has already been found false in
issue No. 1.
It is the admitted position of both parties that the
management had given offer to claimant before Conciliation
Officer on 07.08.16 that it was ready to take him back on duty. It
is also the admitted position that claimant had appeared before the
management on 08.08.16. Thereafter, there are divergent versions.
Claimant's case is that his signatures were obtained on blank papers
of Rs.6200/ and that is why he had complained to Conciliation
Officer MW2 before the scheduled date of 22.08.16.
Management's plea is that he had fully and finally settled in
LIR No.670/17. 12/23
Rs.6,200/ and so, he is not entitled to any relief.
Till 08.08.16, the claimant had worked with the
management for more than 12 years. A workman of the experience
of 12 years cannot be supposed to settle with employer just in
Rs.6,200/. He would have definitely taken more amount. So, the
plea of the claimant that amount of Rs.6,200/ was paid to him as
back wages, is quite true. If he wanted only money, he would not
have accepted the offer of the management for assumption of duty
in the presence of Conciliation Officer on 07.08.16. Even if, it is
presumed that he had settled on 08.08.16, there was no occasion for
the management to issue him appointment letter Ex.MW1/W2 on
the same day i.e. 08.08.16. It is pertinent to mention that it is
mentioned in appointment letter Ex. MW1/W2 that management
had reinstated him as Driver w.e.f. 08.08.16. Issuance of
appointment letter shows that management had obtained signatures
of the claimant on blank papers and thereafter converted one paper
into full and final settlement document Ex. WW1/7. Had claimant
settled fully and finally on 08.08.16, he would not have returned to
the management for job on 09.08.16 as pleaded by management in
written statement. He would not have complained to MW2,
Conciliation Officer, before the scheduled date of 22.08.16 that he
was not taken back on duty and that management had given him a
sum of Rs.6,200/ in the name of full and final settlement whereas
LIR No.670/17. 13/23
that amount was only for his back wages.
It is the consistent stand of the claimant that
management had not issued him any notice and had not tendered
notice and compensation before terminating his service.
Termination of service in that manner is totally in violation of
Section 25F of the Act. So, this issue is decided in favour of the
claimant and against the management.
Issue No. 3.
13. Both parties are disagreeing on the date of joining.
Claimant deposed that he had joined on 06.03.2005 whereas MW1
and MW3 deposed that he had joined only on 01.03.13 and ESI
facility was extended to him on 01.12.13. In order to prove its
plea, the management is strongly relying upon log book Ex.
MW3/3 about which it has already been held that management had
failed to prove that document. Entries in that document starts from
the date 01.12.13 and the last entry is dated 25.05.13. On the other
hand, the claimant is heavily relying upon green card Ex. MW1/14,
challan chit issued by Delhi Police regarding vehicle No.DL1VB
3990 Ex. WW1/15 and receipts Mark W1 to W9.
The green card Ex. WW1/14 was issued by the
Transport Authority of Rishikesh, Uttrakhand for vehicle No. DL
1VA8107. The claimant did not place on record copy of
LIR No.670/17. 14/23
registration certificate of that vehicle to prove that it was owned by
the management. He did not ask MW1 and MW3 in cross
examination whether the vehicle was owned by the management or
not. Similarly, he did not place on record any document to prove
that the vehicle No. DL1VB3990 reflected in challan chit is
owned by management. The receipts from Mark W1 to W9 dated
20.12.2008, 17.12.2008, 19.12.2008, 18.12.2008, 13.01.2009,
03.01.2009, 04.01.2009, 06.01.2009 and 05.01.2009. These
receipts are on the letter heads of management showing that
Tavera Car bearing registration No. 5973 was given on rent by
management to SHO, Police Station Deshbandhu Gupta Road. The
claimant did not ask MW1 and MW3 in cross examination whether
the said Tavera vehicle was owned by the management or not.
Due to these reasons, the claimant has failed to prove ownership of
these vehicles with the management.
The claimant had filed an application for a direction to
the management to produce his service record. In reply, the
management had taken some objections and despite it, the
application was allowed with the observation that it shall be
beneficial to the management also to produce documents as
production of those documents would prove management's plea
that claimant was not its employee. In this background, the
management was directed to place on record following service
LIR No.670/17. 15/23
record of its employees :
1. Appointment letter of the claimant.
2. Wage register of its employees from 06.03.2005 to
28.02.2013.
3. Bonus register from 06.03.2005 to 28.02.2013.
4. Attendance register from 06.03.2005 to 28.02.2013.
The management has taken the plea in the evidence of
MW3 that those documents were stolen. In this aspect, it did not
place on record any DD or FIR. It tried to shift blame on claimant
by taking plea in the roundabout way that he had stolen those
documents, but that plea has already been found false. There is no
reason explanation with management for nonproduction of those
documents and hence, an adverse inference is drawn against it. In
view of above discussion, it is held that claimant had joined the
management on 01.03.13 and not on 06.03.05.
14. Even if, service of a workman has been terminated
illegally, that would not automatically lead to reinstatement and
100% back wages. In Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Union
of India & Ors. 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 709, Hon'ble Delhi High
Court dealt with the question of reinstatement and back wages and
observed in paragraphs 27 and 28 as under :
"27. We find from the decision of the
Supreme Court rendered in the 1970s and
LIR No.670/17. 16/23
1980s that reinstatement with back wages
was the norm in cases where the termination
of the services of the workman was held
inoperative. The decisions rendered in the
1990s, including the decision of the
Constitution Bench in the Punjab Land
Development and Reclamation Corporation
Ltd., Chandigarh seem to suggest that
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and
back wages is now the norm. In any case,
since we are bound to follow the decision of
the Constitution Bench, we, therefore,
conclude that reinstatement is not the
inevitable consequence of quashing an order
of termination; compensation can be
awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back
wages.
28. Considering the facts of this case, we
are persuaded to award compensation in
lieu of reinstatement and back wages to the
workman"
15. In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder
Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of
the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :
"Apart from the aforementioned error of
law, in our considered opinion, the Labour
Court and consequently the High Court
completely misdirected themselves insofar
LIR No.670/17. 17/23
as they failed to take into consideration that
relief to be granted in terms of section 11A
of the said Act being discretionary in nature,
a Labour Court was required to consider
the facts of each case therefor. Only
because relief by way of reinstatement with
full back wages would be lawful, it would
not mean that the same would be granted
automatically".
16. In Vinod Kumar & others vs Salwan Public School
& others WP(c)5820/2011 dt.17.11.2014 Hon,ble Justice V.
Kameshwar Rao has held as under:
11.Having considered the rival submissions
of the counsels for the parties, I do not find
any infirmity in the order of the Labour
Court. It is a settled position of law that
even if termination has been held to be
illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is
not to be granted automatically. The Labour
Court is within its right to mould the relief
by granting a lumpsum compensation. In
fact, I note that the Labour Court has relied
upon three judgments propounding the law
that the Labour Court can mould a relief by
granting lump sum compensation; the
Labour Court is entitled to grant relief
having regard to facts and circumstances of
each case.
12. Further, the Supreme Court in the
following judgments held as under:
(a) In the matter reported as Jaipur
LIR No.670/17. 18/23
Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006)
11 SCC 684, the court has stated:
"However, even assuming that there had
been a violation of Sections 25G and 25H
of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our
opinion, would not mean that the Labour
Court should have passed an award of
reinstatement with entire back wages. This
Court time and again has held that the
jurisdiction under Section 11A must be
exercised judiciously. The workman must be
employed by State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India,
having regard to the doctrine of public
employment. It is also required to recruit
employees in terms of the provisions of the
rules for recruitment framed by it. The
respondent had not regularly served the
appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if instead and in place of reinstatement of his services, a sum of Rs 75,000 is awarded to the respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments."
(b) In the matter reported as Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC LIR No.670/17. 19/23 127, the court has stated:
"23. Noncompliance with the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, although, may lead to the grant of a relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of the retrenched workmen, the same would not mean that such a relief is to be granted automatically or as a matter of course. 25 .....The appellant herein has clearly stated that the appointments of the respondents have been made in violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam. An appointment made in violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam is void. The same, however, although would not mean that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the question as to whether the termination of workmen from services is legal or not but the same should have to be considered to be an important factor in the matter of grant of relief. The Municipal Corporation deals with public money. Appointments of the respondents were made for carrying out the work of assessment. Such assessments are done periodically. Their services, thus, should not have been directed to be continued despite the requirements therefor having come to an end. It, therefore, in our considered view, is not a case where the relief of reinstatement should have been granted."
(c) In the matter reported as Talwara Coop.
LIR No.670/17. 20/23Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 486, the court has stated:
"8. Grant of a relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic. The Industrial Courts while exercising their power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are required to strike a balance in a situation of this nature. For the said purpose, certain relevant factors, as for example, nature of service, the mode and manner of recruitment viz. whether the appointment had been made in accordance with the statutory rules so far as a public sector undertaking is concerned, etc., should be taken into consideration."
(d) In the matter reported as Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, the court has stated :
"7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. ...LIR No.670/17. 21/23
14. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."
17. Claimant deposed that his service was terminated on 28.06.16. He was asked by Conciliation Officer on 07.08.16 to report for duty on 08.08.16 and when he reported for duty, his signatures were obtained on full and final settlement documents by paying only Rs.6,200/. All these facts suggest that relations between both parties are quite sour. Mutual trust is completely missing. Such situation rules out relief of reinstatement.
18. Taking into account the length of service and last drawn wages, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,20,000/ (Rupees Three Lakh and Twenty Thousand Only) is granted to claimant. The management is directed to pay the abovesaid amount to him within one month from the date of publication of the award, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on it @ 9% per annum from today till its realization. Parties to bear their own costs. Award is LIR No.670/17. 22/23 passed accordingly. Reference is answered accordingly.
19. The requisite number of copies of the award be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for its publication.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated to the Steno & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 05.09.2017. PILOT COURT / POLCXVII KKD COURTS, DELHI.
Digitally
signed by
UMED SINGH
UMED GREWAL
Location:
SINGH Delhi
GREWAL Date:
2017.09.05
16:48:22
+0530
LIR No.670/17. 23/23