Delhi District Court
Ad And Upc But The Attitude Of The ... vs Unknown on 30 October, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT No.XX FAST TRACK KKD. COURTS DELHI
ID 100/2006 (Old ID no. 142/1996)
BETWEEN
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s. K.K. INDUSTRIES
1449/6, Durgapuri Chowk,
Loni Road, Shahdara,
Delhi - 110 032 ...MANAGEMENT
AND
WORKMAN INDER KUMAR
C/o Capital Workers Union,
11677, Panchsheel Garden,
Navin Shahdara,
Delhi - 110 032. ....WORKMAN
Date of receipt of reference 24.2.1996
Date of hearing the final arguments 30.10.2007
Date of award 30.10.2007
A W A R D
Workman Inder Kumar has raised an Industrial dispute
against the management of M/s K. K. Industries for termination of his
services by the management and on being satisfied with regard to
existence of an Industrial Dispute between the workman & the
management the appropriate Government vide order no. F.24
(3416)/95-Lab./8856-61 dated 13.2.1996 referred the Industrial
Contd....
2
Dispute to the Court with the following terms of reference:
Whether the services of Sh.Inder Kumar have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and
what directions are necessary in this respect?
The workman filed his statement of claim stating therein
that he had been working with the management since the year 1990 as
a Turner and his last drawn salary was Rs.1400/- per month which was
less than the minimum wages. During the course of employment, the
workman performed his duties very honestly and to the entire
satisfaction of the management and as such there was no compliant
against the workman and he was never chargesheeted. Management
terminated the services of the workman on 10.9.1994 without giving
him any charge sheet and without serving any notice. He was not paid
wages for the month of June, July and August 1994. The termination
of the workman is illegal and unjustified. The workman sent a
demand notice to the management on 16.11.1994 through registered
AD and UPC but the attitude of the management was quite indifferent
towards the demands of the workman. The applicant tried to get job
anywhere else but he could not get alternative job. The applicant is
entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service
and he is also entitled to the wages for the period mentioned above.
Contd....
3
Accordingly it has been prayed that the management may be directed
to reinstate the workman with continuity of service & full back wages
and the management may also be directed to pay the wages of the
workman for the period mentioned above.
An Ex-parte Award dated 13.11.1998 was passed in favour
of the workman but the said ex-parte Award was set aside vide order
dated 28.1.2004.
The management filed written statement and contested the
claim of the workman stating therein that the management is not
indebted to the applicant/claimant in any manner as there never existed
any relation of workman and the management between the parties at
any point of time. The present claim of the applicant is not
maintainable and has been filed with ulterior motive to extract money
from the management. The claimant has not come to the court with
clean hands and is trying to mislead the court by making false
averments and suppressing true facts. There is no cause of action
whatsoever in favour of the applicant. The workman has never been in
the employment of the management and no amount is due to him as
claimed. The management has denied the claim of the workman
Contd....
4
regarding wages, designation and period of service and has stated that
there never existed any relationship of master and servant between the
management and the applicant. The applicant was never in the
employment of the management, as such, there is no question of
issuing charge sheet to the applicant and of any kind of complaint
against the applicant. Since the applicant was not in the employment
of the management, there is no question of termination of his services
by the management and there is no question of payment of wages as
claimed by the applicant in his statement of claim. The management
has denied the service of demand notice. The management has denied
all other averments made by the applicant in his statement of claim and
has stated that since the applicant never worked with the management
in any capacity there is no question of reinstatement with back wages
and continuity of service. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the
claim of the workman may be rejected.
The workman filed rejoinder to the written statement and
controverted the averments made by the management and reiterated
his stand.
Contd....
5
From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed
1.Whether there exist relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2. As per terms of reference.
The workman in order to prove his case examined himself as WW-1 and filed his affidavit in evidence Ex.WW-1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.WW-1/1to Ex.WW-1/12 and thereafter workman evidence was closed.
In the present matter, settlement was arrived at between the parties for Rs. 35000/- and the management issued cheque in the sum of Rs.35000/- to the workman. The settlement was subject to the encashment of the cheque but the cheque issued by the management in favour of the workman was dishonored, as such, the settlement failed.
The management failed to lead any evidence in the matter and the management evidence was closed vide order dated 20.9.2007.
None has appeared on behalf of the management to argue the matter. Final arguments on behalf of the workman heard. File Contd....
6perused. Issue wise discussion is as under:
ISSUE NO.1 The workman in his affidavit has specifically deposed that he had been working with the management of KK Industries since May 1990 as a Turner and his last drawn pay was Rs.1400/- per month which was less than minimum wages. During his cross examination, he has specifically stated that the factory was run by Sh. Har Charan Singh at his residence i.e. Kothi no. 6, Navin Shahdara, Delhi when he joined Har Charan Singh. There were two machines installed at the premises, one was Kharad machine and the other was Kharad Adda. He has further deposed that he was employed by Har Charan Singh who is present in the court and Har Charan Singh used to run the factory in the name of Har Charan Industries from his residence and after shifting the factory to Durga Puri, the name of the factory was changed to K.K. Industries. He has further stated that Har Charan Singh used to send him to Bank for withdrawal of the amount and he used to withdraw the amount and hand over the same to Harcharan Singh. He has also stated that owner of KK Industries was Harcharan Singh. All this suggests that the workman has worked with the management earlier known as Harcharan Industries and subsequently Contd....7
the name of which was changed to KK Industries after the shifting of the industry from the residence of Harcharan Singh to Durgapuri and Sh. Harcharan Singh had been looking after the affairs of the management. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that there exists relationship of employee and employer between the workman and the management. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
ISSUE NO.2 While adjudicating upon issue no.1 it has already been held that there exists relationship of employee and employer between the workman and the management. The workman in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A has specifically stated that he worked with the management of M/s KK Industries since May 1990 and his services were terminated by the management on 10.9.1994. Since no notice, no pay in lieu of notice, no service compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination of his services by the management, the termination of the workman is illegal and unjustified and is in violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Contd....8
No doubt, the termination of the workman has been held illegal and unjustified but still I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for reinstatement with back wages as long time has passed and the workman during his cross examination himself has stated that he went to search for job to Guptaji at Meet Nagar, Gol Chakkar, Sharmaji at Ashok Nagar and even he worked for two days at Ashok Nagar with Sharmaji at Shukra Bazar Gali. He went to the said person in the year 1994 and after the year 1994 till date he did not search for the job.
In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be served if a lump-sum compensation is awarded to the workman instead of reinstatement and back wages. Accordingly, keeping in view the nature of job, the tenure of service of the workman with the management, his last drawn salary and the facts and circumstances of the case, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) is awarded to the workman Inder Kumar. If the management failed to pay the said amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the workman within three months from the date of publication of the award, the workman shall be entitled to recover the said amount from Contd....9
the management along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Award is passed accordingly and the reference is answered accordingly. Copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 30th day of October, 2007 (SUDESH KUMAR) Presiding Officer - Labour Court No.XX (Fast Track) Karkardooma Courts Delhi Contd....