Delhi District Court
Satya Narayan Yadav S/O. Sh. Sumer Yadav vs M/S. Paras Press on 26 August, 2014
Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. M/s. Paras Press ID No. 58/14
BEFORE SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL: POLC - XI :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI .
REFRENCE CASE (ID) NO. 58/14
UNIQUE CASE IDENTIFICATION NO. 02402C0057832014
In the matter of :
Satya Narayan Yadav s/o. Sh. Sumer Yadav,
R/o. House No126, Gali No9, Chanchal Park,
Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi110041
C/o. Rashtriya Mazdoor Wahini Union(Regd.),
D266, Gali No3, Radha Kishan Mandir Marg,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi42 ......... Workman
Vs.
M/s. Paras Press,
487/53, Peeragarhi National Market,
Sheeshe Wali Gali, Delhi. ..........Management
Date of Institution : 14.02.2014
Date of reserving for award : 25.08.2014
Date of award : 26.08.2014
AWARD :
1.Vide Order No. F.3(360)/13/Ref./WD/Lab./301 dated 06/02/14 Deputy Labour Commissioner (West District), Labour Department, Government of N.C.T. Of Delhi referred following dispute between workman Satya Narayan Yadav s/o. Sh. Sumer Yadav, R/o. House No. 126, Gali No. 9, Chanchal Park, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi110041 C/o. Rashtriya Mazdoor Wahini Union(Regd.), D266, Gali No3, Radha Kishan Mandir Marg, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi42 and management M/s. Paras Press, Page 1 of 7 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC XI/KKD/Delhi /26.08.2014 Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. M/s. Paras Press ID No. 58/14 487/53, Peeragarhi National Market, Sheeshe Wali Gali, Delhi u/s. 10(1) (c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide Labour Department Notification No. F.1/31/616/Estt/2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009 for adjudication by this court : ''Whether the services of workman Sh. Satya Narayan Yadav S/o Sh. Sumer Yadav have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. CASE OF THE WORKMAN AS PLEADED IN THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM.
(i) Workman was working with devotion and honesty with management as ''Paster'' since February, 2010 with his monthly salary of Rs. 7400/. During his employment with the management, workman did not give any opportunity to the management to have any complaint against him nor there was any charge against the workman.
(ii) Management was not providing legal facilities under the labour laws such as appointment letter, leaves, minimum wages etc. regarding which workman was regularly making oral demands.
(iii) When on 01.05.2013 workman reported for duty, management terminated his services, without disclosing any reason and giving prior information, illegally and refused to pay salary for the month of April, 2013.
(iv) Workman regarding illegal termination of his services made a complaint to Labour Department and after much efforts of the Labour Inspector management paid a sum of Rs. 6600/ to the workman which workman accepted under protest.
(v) Workman sent a demand notice on 28.06.2013 through post but, despite receiving the demand notice, management neither reinstated the workman nor Page 2 of 7 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC XI/KKD/Delhi /26.08.2014 Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. M/s. Paras Press ID No. 58/14 made any payment to the workman.
(vi) Workman filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer. Management did not take any interest in the conciliation proceedings and, hence, this reference.
(vii) Management terminated the services of the workman in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(viii) Workman is unemployed since the date of termination of his services and despite much efforts workman could not get any service.
With these averments, workman prayed for award in his favour and against the management for his reinstatement in service with full back wages, continuity of service and all legal facilities including minimum wages as declared by Delhi Government time to time.
3. SERVICE OF MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT BE PROCEEDED EXPARTE.
Management stood served with the summons issued by the court for 01.04.2014 on which date, Mr. Mohit Kumar appeared before the court as Authorized Representative of proprietor of the management namely Mr. Ramesh Arora and filed his authority letter. Mr. Mohit Kumar also made a noting on the margin of the ordersheet to the effect that he has been directed to appear before the court by Mr. Ramesh Arora. Copy of the claim and documents was supplied to Mr. Mohit Kumar and case was adjourned to 02.05.2014 for filing of WS alongwith all the documents to be relied upon by the management. On 02.05.2014, the court was on leave; workman appeared in person but none appeared for management as per ordersheet written by Reader of the court. Case was adjourned to 30.05.2014 on which date none appeared Page 3 of 7 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC XI/KKD/Delhi /26.08.2014 Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. M/s. Paras Press ID No. 58/14 for management despite repeated calls since morning and awaiting till after lunch. Hence, management was proceeded exparte.
4. EVIDENCE :
In the exparte evidence, workman examined himself as WW1 and he relied upon documents namely Ex. WW1/1 Complaint dated 02.05.2013; Ex. WW1/2 Report of Labour Inspector namely Mr. Sanjeev Kumar; Ex. WW1/3 Demand Notice dated 28.06.2013; Ex. WW1/4 Postal Receipt dated 28.06.2013 and Ex. WW1/5 Claim filed before Conciliation Officer.
5. ARGUMENTS I have heard Mr. Rajkumar, AR for workman and perused the material available on record carefully.
6. FINDINGS OF THE COURT In this case, case of the workman is that he worked with the management as ''Paster'' and on 01.05.2013, his services were terminated illegally without disclosing any reason and prior information in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Management despite appearing before the court through his AR Mr. Mohit Kumar has not cared to contest the case of the workman on merits. In this way, averments made in the statement of claim and the depositions made by workman in his evidence affidavit have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. As per report (Ex. WW1/2) of the Labour Inspector Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Deepak Arora appeared before him (Labour Inspector) and paid a sum of Rs. 6660/ to workman as his earned salary, which workman accepted under protest. In view of the report (Ex. WW1/2) of the Labour Inspector, it can be said that admittedly the workman was employed with the management. In the complaint Page 4 of 7 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC XI/KKD/Delhi /26.08.2014 Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. M/s. Paras Press ID No. 58/14 Ex. WW1/1 pursuant to which Labour Inspector conducted his proceedings and prepared his report Ex. WW1/2 workman alleged that he was working with the management since February, 2010 with his last drawn salary as Rs. 7400/ per month. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds no reason to disbelieve the averments and depositions made by workman regarding his being in the employment of the management since February, 2010 and management terminating the services of the workman on 01.05.2013 illegally in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per report of the Labour Inspector Ex. WW1/2, Mr. Deepak Arora appearing before Labour Inspector namely Mr. Sanjeev Kumar refused to take the workman on duty. The report of the Labour Inspector suggests that, quite possibly, management did not produce the record (s) before the Labour Inspector. In such circumstances, it would not be justified to ask the workman to seek production of records from the management to prove that he worked with the management for the period as alleged by him in his statement of claim/deposed on oath before the court vide evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A. Thus, by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, it can be concluded that management terminated the services of the workman illegally/unjustifiably without complying the provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Merely because management terminated the services of workman in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not mean that workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with the management with full back wages. Here keeping in view the short length of service of workman with management, workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service with Page 5 of 7 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC XI/KKD/Delhi /26.08.2014 Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. M/s. Paras Press ID No. 58/14 management. Also keeping in view the fact that management is a sole proprietorship concern, reinstatement of workman in service with the management may not result any coordial industrial relations between workman and the management. Hence, workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service with the management. Further, it is noted that except bald averments/deposition that workman made efforts for service, there is nothing on record to show that workman made sincere/serious efforts for getting service after termination of his services by the management. In the statement of claim, workman pleaded that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his service and despite much efforts he could not get any service. In the statement of claim, workman did not disclose/allege as to how he is maintaining himself/his family but in the evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A he improved upon his version and deposed that on account of his failing to get job despite much efforts, he is dependent upon his relatives ('sage sambandhiyo') but workman has not examined any of such relatives. In order to entitle him to full back wages, workman was supposed to show that he made sincere/serious efforts for getting alternative service after terminating his services by the management but workman has failed to so prove on judicial file in this case. In my considered opinion, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, grant of lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/ (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) to the workman on account of management illegally terminating his services in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would meet the ends of the justice. If the abovesaid compensation amount is not paid by management to workman within one month of publication of the award, workman shall also be entitled to Page 6 of 7 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC XI/KKD/Delhi /26.08.2014 Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. M/s. Paras Press ID No. 58/14 interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid amount from the date of the award till its payment by the management to the workman. Further a sum of Rs. 5000/ is allowed, to be payable by management to workman, as litigation expenses in terms of provisions of Section 11 (7) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. REFERENCE IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.
07. A copy of the award be sent to the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner (District West) for further necessary action.
08. File be consigned to Record Room after completing due formalities. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.08.2014.
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLCXI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 7 of 7 (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) POLC XI/KKD/Delhi /26.08.2014