Delhi District Court
Through vs The Management Of on 14 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - XIX
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No: 4051/16
Sh. Kamal Kishore
S/o Sh. Munna Lal
R/o: RZE258, Raj Nagar,
Part - II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi - 110045
Through
Mazdoor Ekta Committee,
B89, Gulmohar Park,
New Delhi - 110049
....CLAIMANT
VERSUS
The Management of
M/s Centaure Hotel,
I.G.I.A. Gurgaon Road,
P.O. New Delhi - 110037
....MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 15.03.2011
Date of passing the Award : 14.09.2018
A W A R D
1.This is a reference dated 16.11.2010, u/s 10(1) (C) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was sent by Dy. Labour Commissioner on a complaint filed by Claimant against the Management, wherein the following reference was to be answered : LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 "Whether services of Sh. Kamal Kishore S/o Sh. Munna Lal have been illegally/ and or unjustifiably terminated by the Management, and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?"
2. Notice of reference was issued to Claimant after which the Claimant had appeared and filed his statement of claim, wherein, it was stated that he was working with the management since 16.07.1982 as house keeping attendant whose services were confirmed by management on 01.08.1983 and his record of service was good. He was appointed as Asst. Steward in F&B Department on 17.07.1985 and was confirmed on 01.10.1986 and thereafter he was also promoted as Steward but was not given his proper seniority and when the matter of his seniority was challenged by him, the management had restored his seniority to its original position on 02.03.1994.
The workman was stated to be an active member of Centaur Hotel Employees Union and was also Chairman of Air India Hotel Corporation of India SC and ST Employees Welfare Association. However, management got annoyed from him because of his taking up causes of employees with the Hotel Management especially the welfare of SC/ST category staff. Due to the annoyance of management, the workman was issued a false and fabricated charge sheet dated 09.11.2000 which was rebutted by him through his reply dated 10.11.2000. However, since the management LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 was bent upon to remove him from the service, one Sh. Rajesh Kashyap, Dy. General Manager (Operations) who was not even legally competent to institute an inquiry against the workman or to appoint an Inquiry Officer, had appointed an Inquiry Officer and had later on changed the said Inquiry Officer as well.
A sham inquiry was conducted against the workman by the management and ultimately the management had terminated the services of workman on 08.04.2004 and his termination order was signed by Sh. Tanvir Hazik, Vice President who was not even competent or authorized to do so. It was also averred that since the general demand of the workman was pending for adjudication before Industrial Tribunal - I, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, hence, the management had to pay one month's wages to the workman in accordance with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of I.D.Act 1947 and also to file an approval application before the Tribunal before the termination of the services of the workman. It was also averred that along with the removal order, the management had also paid an amount of Rs. 8,796/ to the workman vide cheque no. 403038 dated 08.04.2004 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Air Force Station, Palam, New Delhi. However, the said cheque was not deposited by the workman on time as he was stated to be under severe mental tension and shock. The said cheque when presented for encashment, got dishonoured as it's LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 validity period had already expired.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, the workman had prayed that an Award be passed for his reinstatement in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits and to declare the action of the management illegal and in contravention to Section 33 of I.D.Act, 1947.
3. Notice of claim was sent to Management who was duly served with the same and had also appeared to contest the claim of workman on merits and filed its written statement on record, wherein it had challenged the authority of the Delhi Government to send the present reference for adjudication to this Court. Even the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was also challenged by the management and it was stated further that due to some poor service record of the Claimant, he was issued charge sheet and when his reply was not found satisfactory, then he was put to domestic inquiry and after conclusion of a fair and proper inquiry against the workman, he was removed from the service vide removal order dated 08.04.2004.
On merits, all the contents of statement of claim unless the same were specifically admitted or essentially or purely constituted the matter of record, were denied by both the managements as wrong and incorrect.LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23
4. Workman had also filed replication to the said written statement wherein he had denied the contents of WS as wrong and reiterated the contents of statement of claim as correct.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 07.03.2012, ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the following issues :
1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the present claim in its present form? O.P.M.
2. Whether charge sheet was issued to the workman by the competent authority and whether his removal orders were passed by the competent person, if so, to what effect? O.P.M.
3. Whether the management had actually paid one month wages to the workman at the time of his removal from the services, if not the consequences thereof? O.P.W.
4. Whether the management contravened Section 33(1)(2) and 33 of the I.D. Act 1947? Onus on parties.
5. Whether the management conducted a fair and proper domestic enquiry? O.P.M.
6. Relief.
6. However, vide subsequent order dated 27.09.2012, the onus to prove the issue no. 2 and 5 was LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 shifted upon the workman instead of management.
7. In order to discharge the onus of proving the issues, the workman had appeared in the witness box as his sole witness and filed in evidence, his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A wherein he had reiterated the factual contents of his statement of claim on solemn affirmation. However, this affidavit was confined only to the inquiry issue which was framed by my ld. Predecessor and was treated as a preliminary issue.
Besides the affidavit, the workman had also placed on record the following documents :
1. copy of proceedings dated 01.07.2010 along with its annexures running into 7 pages as Ex. WW1/1;
2. copy of rules to conduct disciplinary, appeal, regulations and powers to award penalties as enumerated in regulation 78 as Ex. WW1/2;
3. copy of appointment letter of workman dated 16.07.1982 as Ex. WW1/3;
4. copy of confirmation letter dated 01.08.1983 as Ex. WW1/4;
5. copy of letter of appointment as Asst. Steward dated 17.07.1985 as Ex. WW1/5;
6. copy of confirmation letter dated 01.02.1986 as Ex. WW1/6;LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23
7. copy of promotion letter dated 29.02.1992 promoting the workman from Asst. Steward to Steward as Ex. WW1/7;
8. copy of confirmation of workman dated 01.10.1992 at the post of Steward as Ex. WW1/8;
9. copy of representation made on behalf of workman through his Union dated 21.08.1995 as Ex. WW1/9;
10. copy of schedule to conduct disciplinary inquiry as Ex. WW1/10 (same as Ex.WW1/2);
11. copy of charge sheet dated 09.11.2000 as Ex. WW1/11;
12. copy of reply of workman dated 10.11.2000 to the said charge sheet as Ex. WW1/12;
13. copy of letter of appointment of Inquiry Officer dated 28.06.2002 as Ex. WW1/13;
14. copy of letter dated 24.04.2003 regarding change of Inquiry Officer as Ex. WW1/14;
15. copy of letter dated 23.09.2003 regarding further change of Inquiry Officer as Ex. WW1/15;
16. copy of order of removal dated 08.04.2004 as Ex. WW1/16;
17. original memos of dishonour of cheque are Ex. WW1/17 and Ex. WW1/18;
18. original cheque for amount of Rs. 8795/ dated 08.04.2004 is Ex. WW1/19;
19. a letter dated 29.04.2003 addressed to LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 management for purchase of ladoos on the occasion of labour day as Ex. WW1/20;
20. copy of representation dated 17.07.2003 by Union addressed to management as Ex.
WW1/21;
21. copy of representation dated 29.04.2003 by Union addressed to management as Ex.
WW1/22;
22. copy of representation dated 08.02.2003 to the management for declaration of holiday on account of Ambedkar Jayanti as Ex. WW1/23;
23. Similarly other representations made by the Union to the management on different issues are Ex. WW1/24 to Ex. WW1/27;
24. photocopy of letter dated 28.08.2004 written by the workman to the management regarding dishonour of the cheque as Ex. WW1/28;
25. copy of representation dated 09.11.2000 made by the workman to the management regarding compliance of the principles of natural justice by the inquiry officer as Ex. WW1/29;
26. copy of intimation dated 07.10.2004 given by the workman to the management regarding second dishonour of cheque as Ex. WW1/30;
27. copy of objection raised by workman regarding conduct of Inquiry Officer dated 13.08.2003 as Ex. WW1/31;
28. copy of appeal dated 05.05.2004 against the removal order as Ex. WW1/32;
29. copy of report of the workman regarding his LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 illegal termination of service and demand notice dated 01.04.2010 along with copy of postal receipts as Ex. WW1/33;
During his cross examination conducted by ld. AR for management on inquiry aspect, it was deposed by him that Ex. WW1/M1 from page no. 1 to 212 were the inquiry proceedings and Ex. WW1/M2 from pages no. 213 to 227 was the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and Ex. WW1/M3 was the certified copy of the order dated 04.08.2006 passed by Sh. Dinesh Dayal, the then ld. Presiding Officer, IT2.
Similarly Ex. WW1/M4 was the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by Sh. Gurdeep Kumar, the then ld. POIT2. It was admitted by him that he was charge sheeted on 09.11.2000 and Sh. M.Kumar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. However, he had denied the suggestion as wrong that he was explained the entire procedure of the Inquiry on 17.09.2002 by the Inquiry Officer. However, he had admitted the fact of his putting signatures on each page of the Inquiry Proceedings dated 17.09.2002. Further, he had denied that he was supplied 47 documents on 17.09.2002.
Sh. R.K.Sharma was appointmented as Inquiry Officer after Sh. M.Kumar. He had also stated that he had raised objections to the appointment of Inquiry Officers because as per the service regulations, only a General LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 Manager could have punished him and Mr. Kashyap was not empowered to punish him. The oral objections were also stated to have been raised by him before the Inquiry Officers and it was denied by him that he had attended the inquiry on 07.07.2003 as well as on 10.07.2003. However, he had admitted that he was never denied the opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he had never made any complaint to any official regarding any unfair inquiry being conducted against him. However, it was admitted by him that he was also given an opportunity to produce his evidence but he could not remember as to whether he had examined seven witnesses in support of his defence. He had denied the suggestion that his evidence was closed on 20.10.2003. He had admitted regarding his putting signatures on inquiry proceedings as well as submission of his defence statement and change of inquiry officer on his representation as well as receipt of inquiry report by him. Thereafter his evidence on inquiry issue was closed.
8. In rebuttal, the management had examined Ms. G.K.Sethi d/o Sardar I.S.Sethi as its witness who had placed on record her examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A, in which she had reiterated the stand of management as taken in the written statement on solemn affirmation and had also placed her letter of authority on record as Ex. MW1/1.LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23
During her cross examination conducted by ld. AR for workman, she had expressed her lack of knowledge regarding any resolution having been passed in any meeting of Board of Directors authorizing her to appear and depose in this matter as a witness. However, the contrary suggestion put to her in this regard was denied by her as wrong. It was also denied by her as wrong that Sh. Chetan Kak, the Vice President had no authority to authorize her to appear and depose as a witness in this matter. However, it was admitted to be correct by her that Air India Ltd and Hotel Corporation of India Ltd were two different entities having separate service regulations in respect of their employees.
Witness was stated to be serving as an Officer (Reservation) with Centaur Hotel as on 01.07.1999 and it was admitted by her that she had not participated in any inquiry proceedings conducted against the workman. However, she had denied the suggestion that workman had never indulged into any disciplinary act and that is why management had restored his seniority with other benefits and it was further deposed by her that restoration of seniority of workman along with other benefits had no concern with the indiscipline. She was not aware if the workman was the Chairman of SC/ST Welfare Association during the period from 19942001. She was further stated to have joined the personnel department of the management in the year 2001 and that is why she was LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 not aware about the correspondence between SC/ST Welfare Association and the management. A contrary suggestion put to her in this regard was again denied by her as wrong. She had also expressed her lack of knowledge that Sh. K.S.Panwar, one of the conveners who was earlier an employee of the Ministry of Civil Aviation used to deal with the matter pertaining to the management during that time. It was denied by her as wrong that said Sh. K.S.Panwar had not conducted an inquiry against the workman in a fair and impartial manner and that is why he was not authorized by the management to appear as a witness in this case. Thereafter management's evidence was also closed.
9. It shall be pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 07.03.2012, which was further modified vide order dated 27.09.2012, the issue regarding management's conducting a fair and proper domestic inquiry was framed as issue no. 5 by Ld. Predecessor(s) of this Court.
However, it shall be further pertinent to mention here that Sh. Dinesh Dayal, ld. Presiding Officer - Industrial Tribunal II (as his goodself then was), Karkardooma Courts in O.P.No. 16, 17 and 18 of 2004 vide his goodself's order dated 04.08.2006 was pleased to hold in favour of the management and against the workman that the inquiry conducted by management against the workman was legal and valid one.LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23
10. Similarly issue no. 3 pertaining to the actual tender of one month's wages to the workman at the time of removal of his service was decided by the Court of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar (as his goodself then was), ld. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - II, Karkardooma Courts, while dealing with the approval application of the management herein vide his goodself's order dated 20.09.2008 in favour of the management and against the workman vide which he had also granted approval to the management under Section 33(2) (B) of the I.D.Act for removal/ dismissal of the workman from the service holding that management had remitted full one month's wages to the workman.
11. Both these orders were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide appropriate writ petitions which were also dismissed and hence the findings given by ld. Presiding Officer(s) of Industrial Tribunal - II had become final and binding in respect of these two issues and therefore same do not require any fresh adjudication by this Court while dealing with the present matter in hand.
12. So far as the remaining issues are concerned, the workman had again appeared in the witness box and filed in evidence, his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/B wherein again he had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn affirmation and had also relied LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 upon the documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/33 which were already exhibited on record while his examination on the inquiry issue.
During his subsequent cross examination conducted by ld. AR for management, he was stated to have joined as house keeping attendant on 16.07.1982 and was terminated on 08.04.2004 and his termination order was passed by Sh. Tanvir Haziq, the Vice President (Operations). He had denied the suggestion put to him that Sh. Tanvir Haziq was not the Vice President of the management at the relevant point of time. It was stated by him that said Sh. Haziq was the Appellate Authority and not the Competent Authority in the management to have awarded him the punishment which competence lies with the General Manager.
The information regarding dishonour of the cheque was stated to have been conveyed to the management vide his letter Ex. WW1/28. It was denied by him as wrong and incorrect that documents Ex. WW1/28 and Ex. WW1/30 were forged and fabricated documents and it was further stated by him that he had not filed these documents before the Industrial Tribunal when the management had filed the approval application and it was also denied by him as incorrect that management was not informed by him about the dishonour of the cheque or that he LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 was deposing falsely. Thereafter his evidence was closed again.
13. In rebuttal, Ms. G.K.Sethi, had appeared again in the witness box on behalf of the management and had filed in evidence, her examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. MWA1/A wherein she had again reiterated the stand of management as taken in the written statement on solemn affirmation. Besides this, she had also placed on record the following documents :
1. show cause notice dated 11/12.07.2001 as Ex. MW1/1;
2. a letter dated 13.10.2000 pertaining to the suspension of the workman as Ex. MW1/2;
3. letters containing apology of the workman and his assurance about future good conduct and revocation of his suspension vide letters dated 25.10.2000 and 22.11.2010 as Ex. MW1/3 and Ex. MW1/4;
4. another suspension letter of the workman dated 01.07.1999 as Ex. MW1/5;
5. charge sheet dated 31.01.2000 as Ex. MW1/6;
6. reply dated 01.09.2003 along with kalandra u/s 93/97 D.P.Act as Ex. MW1/7;
7. censure order dated 07.10.2013 as Ex. MW1/8;LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23
8. charge sheet dated 09.11.2000 as Ex. MW1/9 along with schedule to conduct disciplinary and appeal regulations as Ex. MW1/10;
9. removal letter of workman dated 08.04.2004 as Ex. MW1/11;
10. pay slip for the month of March of workman as Ex. MW1/12;
11. delegation of power vide order dated 14.01.2002 as Ex. MW1/13;
12. order dated 12.11.2002 as Ex. MW1/14;
13. bank statement of Syndicate Bank as Ex. MW1/15;
14. judgment passed by ld. Industrial Tribunal - II dated 04.08.2006 and 20.09.2008 as Ex. MW1/16 and Ex. MW1/17 respectively;
15. order dated 16.03.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Ex. MW1/18 and other writ petition along with affidavit dated 31.01.2009 as Ex. MW1/19 and Ex. MW1/20 respectively.
In her cross examination conducted by ld. AR for the workman on 23.05.2018, she was stated to be working in the management for the last 36 years and had joined the HR Department in the year 2001. It was admitted as correct by her that the service rules and regulations of Hotel Corporation of India were fully applicable to the employees of the management including the workman. It was also admitted by her that Sh. Rajesh Kashyap, the then Deputy General Manager (Operations) had initiated a domestic inquiry against LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 the workman and had appointed Sh. M.Kumar, Senior Manager, as the Inquiry Officer. However, it was denied by her as wrong that Sh. M.Kumar, had refused to conduct the said inquiry against the workman while intimating the management that Sh. Kashyap was not legally competent to appoint him as an Inquiry Officer. It was volunteered by her that after his appointment as Inquiry Officer, Sh. M.Kumar was also placed under suspension which compelled the management to change the Inquiry Officer. It was also stated by him that management must have mentioned the reasons for change of Inquiry Officer in its letter communicated to the workman, however, when she was confronted with the letter Ex. MW1/WX1, no such reason was found mentioned therein. She had also denied the suggestion that no powers were delegated to the Managing Director as well as committee to take administrative action against the employees and to impose penalty upon them and also that the Vice President of the establishment was not competent to impose penalty upon the workman. It was further deposed by her that document pertaining to the delegations of such powers must have been available in their office and formal suggestions were also denied by her as wrong and incorrect. Thereafter management evidence was also closed.
14. In the light of the aforesaid testimonies of the parties as well as documents placed and proved on record by them, my issue wise findings are as under: LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 Issue no. 1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the present claim in its present form? O.P.M. The onus to prove this issue was upon the management, however, no evidence has been adduced by the management in discharge of the same to show that this Court had no jurisdiction to decide the present claim as filed in its present form.
Accordingly, the issue is answered in negative and is decided against the management and in favour of workman.
Issue no. 3. Whether the management had actually paid one month wages to the workman at the time of his removal from the services, if not the consequences thereof? O.P.W. The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman and as already held in preceding para, the said issue already stands decided by ld. Presiding Officer - IT (II) in favour of management and against the workman. Hence, this issue does not call for any fresh adjudication.
Issue no. 5. Whether the management conducted a fair and proper domestic enquiry? O.P.W. The onus to prove this issue was upon the LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 workman and as already held in preceding para(s), the said issue already stands decided by ld. Presiding Officer - IT (II) in favour of management and against the workman. Hence, this issue also does not call for any fresh adjudication.
Issue no. 2. Whether charge sheet was issued to the workman by the competent authority and whether his removal orders were passed by the competent person, if so, to what effect? O.P.W. The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman. Admittedly both the parties have relied upon the rules to conduct disciplinary and appeal regulations and power to award penalty as enumerated in Regulation 78 as per which the competent/ disciplinary authority in respect of the employees whose basic salary did not exceed Rs. 16,750/ per month was the General Manager and whose appellate authority/ reviewing authority was stated to be Director of concerned Department or the Director (Administration) (as per Ex. WW1/2). However, as per the document Ex. WW1/10, this criteria had applied only to the employees whose basic salary had not exceeded Rs. 7,525/ per month.
Admittedly, the charge sheet in this case was issued to the workman by his General Manager Sh. Anil Kalia, which has been placed on record as Ex. WW1/11 and as per the schedule relied upon by the workman, the General LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 Manager was the competent disciplinary authority in respect of the present workman considering his basic salary. Even the workman's reply Ex. WW1/12 dated 10.11.2000 to the aforesaid charge sheet was also addressed to his General Manager in which he had nowhere raised any objections regarding competence of the General Manager to issue him the charge sheet.
Merely because the workman was informed about appointment of Inquiry Officer or the change of Inquiry Officer by Dy. General Manager (Operations) Sh. Rajesh Kashyap, the same would not have taken away the charge sheet from the ambit of being a valid one.
Similarly perusal of the record reveals that dismissal order dated 08.04.2004 Ex. WW1/16 in respect of the present workman was signed by Sh. Tanvir Haziq, Vice President (Admin). As per the schedule relied upon, the Director of Management which was later on redesignated as Vice President, as contended by ld. AR for Management who was admittedly senior to the General Manager.
Despite the case having been fixed today for pronouncement of the orders, AR for management had appeared and filed an application for placing on record the extracts of minutes of meeting of Board of Directors held on 30.12.1993, although neither the relevance of this document LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 was cited nor it was ever tendered in the evidence still it was insisted upon by ld. AR for management that the Court must take this document into consideration. The documents talks about nothing but just mentions about the redesignation of the post of Directors who were not on the Board to the post of Vice President.
In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, there can be no hesitation in anybody's mind in holding that the workman was charge sheeted by a duly competent authority i.e., the General Manager.
So far as the second part of the issue is concerned, the removal order was passed by the Superior authority to the Competent Authority who was also the appellate as well as reviewing authority in respect of the workman in the context of punishment awarded to him. Had it been the case where a person junior to the competent authority had issued a charge sheet and had signed the removal orders of the workman, same could have been held to be prejudicial to his interest.
However, here the case is different as the aforesaid orders were passed and signed by superior officer to the competent authority. It is not even the case of the workman that in view of his removal orders having been signed by a superior authority, he was not allowed to make LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 an appeal against the punishment awarded to him. Rather his own document Ex. WW1/32 shows that he had made an appeal to the Managing Director of the management against his order of removal. Thus, it could not be held that any prejudice had been caused to the workman by issuance of his removal order by a person superior to the competent authority.
I fail to understand as to why a person superior in rank to the Competent Authority cannot take an action, which his subordinate officer is competent to take. Hence, the issue is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of management and against the workman.
Issue no. 4. Whether the management contravened Section 33(1)(2) and 33 of the I.D. Act 1947? Onus on parties.
The onus to prove this issue was again on the parties. Section 33(1)(2) talks about dismissal of an employee during the pendency of any proceedings in respect of an Industrial Dispute and it states that no workman shall be discharged or dismissed unless he had been paid wages for one month after having obtained necessary approval from the authority before which such proceedings is pending.
Admittedly as held in preceding paras and decision on the previous issues, the management had taken LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23 necessary approval from ld. Industrial Tribunal - II and had also paid one month's salary to workman hence it could not be said that it had violated the provisions of Section 33(1)(2) I.D.Act. Issue is accordingly answered in negative and decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
Issue no. 6. Relief In view of my findings to above issues, the statement of claim as filed by claimant is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Award is passed accordingly. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms. Copies of award be sent to Labour Commissioner for publication. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
DATED: 14.09.2018
LOKESH Digitally signed
by LOKESH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2018.09.15
SHARMA 12:13:35 +0530
(LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER - LABOUR COURT XIX
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No: 4051/16 Page 23 of 23