Delhi District Court
Sh. S.U. Siddiqui vs ? 9 ?A@ Bdcfe <-> +-Gh* ')< I Bdc J (K1 Gh. ... on 3 January, 2008
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL, POLC-I,
ROOM NO. 50, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
LCA No. 81/2005
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.10.2005
DATE OF DECISION: 03.01.2008
BETWEEN
Sh. S.U. Siddiqui
S/O Late Sh. Sarfuddin Siddiqui
R/O Mohalla Metha Shahee
Town & P.O. Kiratpur, Bijnaur,
U.P 246731. ...... Workman
AND
M/s
$&% ')( Jitco Overse
*,+-%/. 0 13 2 .4')5 6708(- '49;
:= <- > < + ! 5- #'"
? 9 ?A@ BDCFE <-> +-GH* ')< I BDC J (K1 GH. 08< L MN( < 2 C
E <-> +-GH* ')< C
New Delhi -110014.
...... Management
ORDER
1. This is an application U/S 33 C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act filed by the workman, S.U. Siddiqui against management Jitco Overseas for recovery of money due to him. It is the contention of the claimant that he was working with the management as electrical engineer since 05.02.99 on a consolidated payment of Rs.2500/- per month which was enhanced from time to time and his O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Z [ last drawn wages were Rs.3050/- per month. In october, 1992 he was transferred to site at Bihar though he used to report at Delhi office in between for submitting his reports and other miscellaneous work as per direction of the management. He was discharging his duties sincerely to the satisfaction of the management at Bihar site till March,1 994. In March, he applied for leave for marriage of his relative. After availing the leave, he reached Delhi office on 04.04.94 for joining duties but was not allowed by the management on the plea that the work at Bihar was not in progress and he shall be called after resumption of work. On 25.4.94, he was sent to Bihar site to bring survey report of the work done which was submitted by him on 09.05.94. Thereafter again no work was assigned to him on the pretext that he will be called on resumption of work at Bihar site. He repeatedly went to Delhi office for duty but neither he was given any work nor any salary was paid to him. His repeated letters in this regard also proved to be a futile exercise. It was further stated that during his tenure with the management also he was not being paid his salary regularly. Out of his salary from October,1992 till June,1994 only a sum of Rs.13,010/- was paid in all, leaving a sum of Rs.45040/- as due and outstanding. He prayed that the said sum along with his EPF contribution, employer's contribution with 18% interest be \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g g h ordered to be paid to him by the management.
2. Notice of the application was sent to the management but none appeared for management nor any reply was filed. Hence, the management was proceeded exparte vide order dated 06.01.06 and the case was posted for exparte evidence. Workman has filed his affidavit affirming his contentions on oath.
3. Written arguments were filed on behalf of workman. I have perused the entire records and carefully considered the matter.
4. As per claim of the workman, his salary is due from October,1992 till June,1994. The present application was filed in March,2007 i.e. after a gap of thirteen years, workman has in his application as well as in his evidence failed to given any sufficient reason as to why he did not approach the court immediately after 1994 or why there has been a delay of thirteen years in filing the present claim.
5. Admittedly, no specific limitation period is provided for i j k l m n o p q r s t t u an application U/S 33-c (2) under I.D Act, still the court has to see the delay in approaching the court as a stale claim as held in 'Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Pahal Singh 2007 LLR 579'. Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M (2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no explanation at all in our case for the delayed claim.
6. Even otherwise the claim of the workman is contrary to his averments in the application as well as evidence. He has claimed the arrears from October, 1992 @ Rs.3050/- per month. He has pleaded that initially he was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.2500/- per month and it was subsequently increased to Rs.3050/- per month. Neither he has specified any date when his salary was so increased nor he has filed on record his appointment letter or his pay slip to show that his salary in October, 1992 was Rs.3050/- per month. Further, his contention is that he was paid part salary but he has failed to specify the dates on which he was paid salary in part. Nor any details of the amount received by him from the management month wise have been given. As per claimant, from October, 1992 till June, 1994 he received only Rs.3700/- from management but in his own letter dated 05.01.94 filed as Annexure v w x y z { | } ~ A, he admits that the management was sending Rs.2,000/- per month to his family from October, 1992 till March, 1993 which means that from October, 1992 to December, 1992 he had received Rs.6,000/- minimum from the management as remittance to his family alone meaning thereby his present claim is not correct. In the order of competent authority, Shops & Establishment Act, it is mentioned that workman admits receipt of Rs.7,000/- from management whereas in present case no such figure of Rs.7,000/- appears anywhere as admitted in claim or evidence of claimant. Further from his correspondence with the management, it is evident that there was some dispute relating to settlement of account between him and management in respect of advance payment received by him and the expenditure actually incurred. It, therefore, cannot be said that the payment claimed by the workman is admitted by the management.
7. It is well settled that U/s 33-C(2), the court acts as an executing court and can only compute the recognised or already adjudicated benefits in favour of the workman and cannot decide the workman's entitlement thereto. In MCD vs. Ganesh Razzaq reported as 57 ( 1995) DLT 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
Para 12: "The labour court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workman's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33- C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recoganised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the labour court's power Under Section 33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution."
8. The above position of law has been reiterated thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including State of UP vs Brij Pal Singh reported as (2005) 8 SCC 58.
9. In the recent judgment reported as Union of India vs Kunkuben (Dead)by LRs and others (2006 LLR 494), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held Overtime Allowance cannot be claimed U/s 33-C(2) of the ID Act on the ground that the workman's entitlement to the same requires prior adjudication.
10. In the instant case, workman has otherwise also not adduced any documentary or other cogent evidence in the form of his pay slips, bank statement, account statement etc. to show that the amount claimed was actually due & payable to him. It is also not proved that any PF was applicable to the management unit and that any PF was actually deducted from salary of workman by management. On one hand workman not approach court for 13 years but on the other hand he is claiming interest from management for said period. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby hold that neither relief sought by the workman/applicant falls under the domain of Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act nor claim of workman is proved and the claim is otherwise highly belated. The application is so devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on (MAMTA TAYAL) rd 3 January, 2008 PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-I KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI