Delhi District Court
Between vs M/S. Prekom Industries on 24 October, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. JAIN, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
ID NO.385/05
BETWEEN:
Workman Sh. Raj Kumar Pandit, s/o. Sh. Akalu Pandit, 19, P.S. Rathi
Block, near Tehsil Building, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054.
. . . . The workman
AND
1.M/s. Prekom Industries, D-6, SMA Industrial Area, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi-110033.
. . . . The Management AWARD
1. The present claim u/s. 2A read with section 10 (4A) of I.D. Act has been filed by the claimant submitting therein that he was working under the management from 17.2.04 as 'Mistry' and his last drawn wages were Rs.3300/- per month. He served the management sincerely and devotedly and there was no complaint against him. But the management was not providing all legal facilities except ESI and appointment letter. He was appointed on 17.2.04 but appointment letter was issued to him on 18.4.04. When he demanded the correct appointment letter then the management avoided it on one pretext or other.
2. It is further submitted by the claimant that his services were terminated by the management on 27.5.05 illegally and at that time no reason was given. His earned wages from 1.5.05 to 27.5.05 were also not paid. He approached the management regularly and reported for duty but was not allowed to do so.
3. It is further submitted by the claimant that termination of his 2 services was illegal and in violation of section 25F of I.D. Act.
4. It is further submitted by the claimant that the management had obtained his signatures on some blank papers and vouchers and that he was unemployed from the date of his illegal termination.
5. It is further submitted by the claimant that he served a demand notice on the management but no reply was received and he was not reinstated.
6. It is prayed that the management should be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages.
7. The notice of the claim was sent to the management and the management in its written statement took the preliminary objection that the claimant was gainfully employed somewhere else. On merits it was submitted that the claimant started working with the management from 18.4.04 and on 9.7.04 he sustained miner injuries during his duties and he was declared fit to resume his duties w.e.f. 1.10.04 and till that period he remained on leave and received salary from ESI.
8. It was further submitted by the management that the workman left the job of his own.
9. All other averments made in the claim were denied.
10. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the claimant himself had resigned from the services?
2. Whether the claimant is gainfully employed, if so, its effect?
3. Whether the claimant's services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably?
4. Relief.3
11. The claimant failed to file his affidavit and his evidence was closed on 12.7.06 when none appeared for him. The claimant was allowed to lead evidence again vide order dated 18.1.07 and he examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A in support of his case. On 10.5.07 the statement of MW1 was recorded who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A but AR workman did not cross examine MW1. The case was reserved for Award when AR workman moved an application of recalling MW1. MW1 was present on 18.9.07 and AR workman did not appear to cross examine MW1. One proxy AR appeared who left to call main AR but did not return. In these circumstances the application moved on behalf of workman for recalling MW1 was rejected. None appeared for workman at the time of final arguments also.
12. I have heard Ld. AR for management and have gone through the relevant record. My findings on the issues above are as follows. ISSUE NO.1
13. The claimant in his affidavit reiterated what was recorded in his statement of claim. In his cross examination he could not tell the exact date when he sustained injuries on his right hand. He admitted that ESI had issued fitness certificate to him and after stating that he did not know about the fitness certificate claimed that it was handed over to the management. He claimed that till 27.5.05 he used to go to management to join duties. He could not tell the last time when he had received salary from the management. He admitted that he had received the salary from the management in July, 2004. He could not tell if ESI had issued fitness certificate to him on 1.10.04.
14. On the other hand MW1 in his affidavit stated on oath that the 4 claimant joined the management on 18.4.04 and after sustaining injuries on 9.7.04 he got treatment from ESI hospital and after receiving fitness certificate he did not inform the management about his fitness and left the present job without intimation.
15. As per the statement of claim the services of claimant was terminated on 27.5.05. As per claimant till 27.5.05 he used to go to the management to join his duties. Certainly his services could not have been terminated on 27.5.05. The fitness certificate was issued to the workman on 1.10.04. The claimant has failed to prove that from 1.10.04 to 27.5.05 he was performing his duties with the management. A demand notice copy of which is Ex.WW1/1 is dated 7.9.05 that is to say after about four months of alleged date of termination of services. The management filed ESI temporary identification certificate copy of which is Ex.WW1/M1 according to which the claimant had joined another firm on 1.2.06.
16. All these facts mentioned above if read together lead only to one conclusion that the claimant himself had resigned from the services and his services have not been terminated by the management.
17. The issue accordingly is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
ISSUE NO.2
18. The claimant in his cross examination admitted that he worked with M/s. Monia Metals Pvt. Ltd. He admitted that the ESI temporary identification card which is Ex.WW1/M1 belonged to him. Though the claimant stated that he worked with M/s. Monia Metals Pvt. Ltd. for only two days but this part of his statement cannot be believed. The claimant nowhere proved that he had worked with M/s.
5Monia Metals Pvt. Ltd. for two days only. So it has to be held that the claimant is gainfully employed.
19. The issue accordingly is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
ISSUE NO.3
20. While deciding issue nos. 1 & 2 it has already been held that the claimant himself had left the job and was gainfully employed so there is no question of his services having been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably.
21. The issue accordingly is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
22. In view of my findings on the issues above I hold that the claimant is not entitled to any relief and no directions are necessary in this respect.
23. A copy of this Award be sent to the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi and file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court R.K.JAIN)
Dt.24.10.2007 Presiding Officer
Labour Court No. IX
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi