Delhi District Court
Sh.Ramakant Tiwari vs M/S Kumar Engg. Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd on 30 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Ref. No. : F.24 (1458) (179)/WD/Labour/08/5146
Dated : 21.08.2009
I.D.No. : 858/09
Unique Case ID No.02402C0348272009
Sh.Ramakant Tiwari, S/o Sh.Satya Narain Tiwari,
C/o Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh,
T44 D, Karampura, New Delhi110015 ..............Workman
Versus
M/s Kumar Engg. Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd.
DLF 41 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi110015 ..........Management
Date of Institution of the case : 22.10.2009
Date on which reserved for Award : 25.03.2013
Date on which Award is passed : 30.03.2013
A W A R D
The workman Sh. Ramakant Tiwari, raised an industrial
dispute regarding the termination of his services by the management
of M/s Kumar Engg. Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd.. The appropriate
Government on being satisfied regarding the existence of industrial
dispute between the parties, made a reference for adjudication. The
said reference is as under :
"Whether services of workman Sh. Ramakant
Tiwari S/o Shri Satya Narain Tiwari have
I.D. No.858/09 Page 1 out of 6
been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated
by the management; and if yes, to what relief
is he entitled?"
Thereafter, statement of claim was filed by the workman. It is
stated by the workman in his statement of claim that he was working
with the management as Helper since 1995 on the last drawn salary of
Rs. 3,633/ per month; that he had given no chance of complaint to
the management during the entire period of his tenure of service with
the management and there was no charge against him; that the
management was not providing legal facilities to the workman such as
appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, pay slip, encashment
of leave, bonus, ESI facility etc.; that the management was taking 12
hours work per day from the workman but was not paying any
overtime amount to him; that upon the demands of the workman for
these legal facilities, the management started getting annoyed with
him and terminated his services on 09.06.2008 without payment of
dues and without disclosing any reason for the same after abusing
him; that the management had withheld the earned wages of the
workman for the period 01.06.2008 to 08.06.2008 as also over time
for 122 hours for the month of May 2008, leave encashment, bonus,
minimum wages arrear etc. ; that the termination of the services of the
workman without any notice pay, service compensation, charge sheet
I.D. No.858/09 Page 2 out of 6
and conducting domestic enquiry is illegal and unjustified and is
violative of provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (as amended upto date); that the workman had sent a demand
notice dated 18.06.2008 to the management but the management had
not replied the same; that the workman made a complaint dated
09.06.2008 in this regard through union before the Labour
Department; that despite the efforts of the Labour Inspector the
management neither reinstated the workman back on duty nor paid
his dues; that the workman filed his statement of claim before the
Conciliation Officer but the conciliation proceedings got failed due to
non cooperative attitude of the management, hence the present
reference before this Hon'ble Court; that the workman is unemployed
since the date of illegal termination of service of the workman ; that
the workman had worked for more than 240 days in each calender
year with the management, hence his services cannot be terminated
without following the due process of law. Hence, the workman has
claimed for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service
and all his dues.
Notice of the filing of statement of claim was sent to the
management who had appeared and contested the claim filed by
workman by filing the written statement. In the written statement
filed by the management it have taken the preliminary objections that
I.D. No.858/09 Page 3 out of 6
the present petition is not maintainable in the present form; that the
present petition is not maintainable as the claimant has suppressed the
relevant true facts, guilty of suppression of true facts and has not
come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands; that the present
petition is not maintainable as there was no relationship of employer
and employee between the parties; that the present petition is not
maintainable as even the name of the respondent as mentioned in the
petition qua the reference is not correct. On merits, it is stated that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties; that in the absence of relationship nothing can be attributed; that the respondent was having contractors and some of the persons are working under them and the claimant may be the employee of one of the contractor, however, the said employees were not working under the control and supervision of the respondent, as such, nothing could be said in this regard, whereas as far as the respondent is concerned there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties; that each and every labour law is being complied with and the employees working with the respondent were being provided all the benefits as applicable; that in the absence of relationship of employer and employee all the allegations are nothing but a concocted story in order to mislead and nothing else; that no notice has been received, as mentioned; that since there was no I.D. No.858/09 Page 4 out of 6 relationship of employer and employee, there was no question of taking the claimant on duty by the respondent; that no payment was due from the respondent in favour of the claimant; that there was no question of any settlement as there was no relationship of employer and employee, however, the reference has been made in a mechanical manner, which has no meaning at all; that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties, as such, no termination as alleged. All other allegations are denied. Hence, it is prayed that the statement of claim be dismissed.
No rejoinder to the written statement of the management has been filed by the workman, on record.
On the pleadings of the parties vide order dated 24.08.2011, the following issues were framed:.
(i) Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
(ii) As per terms of reference. (iii) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for and the case was fixed for workman evidence.
However, the workman neither appeared in the workman evidence, nor even filed his affidavit by way of evidence in the same, on record, nor led evidence of any other workman witness in the I.D. No.858/09 Page 5 out of 6 workman evidence, on record, despite several opportunities granted to the workman in this regard, on record and accordingly, the workman evidence was closed vide order dated 25.03.2013 passed in this regard, on record.
On the submissions of the AR for the management that in view of the workman having not appeared in the workman evidence nor led any other evidence in the same, on record, he does not wish to lead any evidence on behalf of the management in management evidence, on record, the management evidence has also been closed vide order of the same date, on record.
In view of the workman having not appeared in the workman evidence nor even filed his affidavit by way of evidence in the same, on record, nor led evidence of any other workman witness in the same, on record, despite opportunities granted to the workman in this regard in the instant statement of claim, on record, it is apparent that the workman is not entitled to any relief in the same.
The reference is answered accordingly and the award is passed. Ahlmad is directed to send six copies of this Award to the appropriate Government. The file be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open court on 30.03.2013 (Chandra Gupta) Presiding Officer Labour CourtX Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D. No.858/09 Page 6 out of 6