Delhi District Court
Sh Ashok Kumar vs M/ S Ranbaxy Laboratories Id No. 841/04 on 29 April, 2010
SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRATAP S. MALIK THE PRESIDING OFFICER IN
LABOUR COURT XI, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Computer identification No. 02402C0418562004
F.24 (800)/93-Lab/33626 - 631 dated
Reference No. 27.12.1993
Type of Case Reference
Date of Institution 24.05.1994
Final Arguments Heard on 20.04.2010
Whether Reserved for Order 29.04.2010
Date of Award 29.04.2010
WORKMAN MANAGEMENT
Sh. Ashok Karamchandani, C/o M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories
New Delhi General Mazdoor Union Vs Limited, 25, Nehru Place, New
- B - 89, Gulmohar Park. New Delhi - 19.
Delhi - 49.
PRESENT:
None for the parties
AWARD:
1. The appropriate Government sent a reference no. F.24 (800)/93-Lab/33626 -
631 dated 27.12.1993 to this court in relation to the illegal termination of the
workman by the Management M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. The
reference specifically points out as follows :-
"Whether Sh. Ashok Karamchandani has abandoned his services on transfer
or his services 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?"
AWARD Page 1 of 8
SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04
2. As per claim, the workman Ashok Karamchandani was working with the
respondent / Management M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited for the 14 years
preceding to the date of filing the claim./ he started as a "Dispatch Assistant"
but subsequently he was promoted and his last drawn salary was Rs.2461/- p.m. As per claim, the workman was not satisfied and happy with the PF Policy of the respondent / Management and started making complaints to the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi. He started writing letters from 03.03.1992 and kept it writing till 17.08.1992.
3. As per claim, the workman was transferred by the respondent / Management to Gauhati vide a letter dated 20.07.1992 which was received by the workman after a couple of days through post, who in turn challanged the Management's transfer order as illegal and malafide and demanded revocation of the aforesaid order.
4. The workman stated that he fell ill from 20.07.1992 till 12.08.1992 and intimated the Management. The Management required him to report on duty latest by 17.08.1992 and on 19.08.1992 the Management terminated his services on the ground that he failed to comply with the directions of the Management to resume duties latest by 17.08.1992.
5. Thereafter the Management filed a written statement / reply with 17 pages in length. Out of these 17 pages, 13 pages were given to something which is written as preliminary objections.
6. This court understands amount of hard work, patience and expertises, the so called Management would have undergone in preparing this document "written statement".
7. The ld. Predecessor vide its order dated 17.09.1996 framed the following issues :-
AWARD Page 2 of 8
SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04 i. As per terms of reference.
ii. Whether the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 of the I.D. Act?
8. The workman examined himself as WW1 and reiterated his claim. He made the things more clear in his affidavit particularly those aspects which were a bit ambiguous in his claim petition. He stated that he was promoted to a higher grade w.e.f. 01.04.1991 vide a letter which is Ex. WW1/1. Thereafter he started making complaints to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the first letter in that series is Ex. WW1/2. This letter was written on 17.12.1991 and this letter followed some other correspondence initiated at the ends of the present workman to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who would have written to the Management. Several letters of this nature were placed on record by the workman.
9. There was a letter dated 20.07.1992 and the workman exhibited this letter as Ex. WW1/12 whereby this workman was transferred to Gauhati. He was excepted to join there at Gauhati latest by 27.07.1992. One another letter dated 20.07.1992 Ex. WW1/13 is also there releaving the the workman to make preparations so that he could take charge at the transferred position. Thereafter there are the letters whereby this workman protested against the aforesaid transfer orders. Eh also placed on record some medical prescriptions recommending a medical rest right from the date of his transfer to a next date 28.07.1992. This slip was prepared by some Dr. Capt. Ramesh. From the seal affixed by this doctor it appears that he did his MBBS from Lucknow.
10. One V.K. Taneja appears to have been examined on behalf of the respondent / Management. He disclosed that the workman was appointed as a trainee clerk. Thereafter gradually he was promoted to the cadre of "Dispatch Supervisor", the position he was lastly holding. It AWARD Page 3 of 8 SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04 was stated by this witness that on his promotion in the supervisory cadre, the workman Ashok Karamchandani ceased to have the benefits of fixed DA and hence the amount of his DA was reduced. On this aspect the workman started making complaints to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
11. There is one important aspect of this case. The claimant impleaded the respondent / Management as M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited i.e. a limited company. This court has seen the material available on record. There is not even a single piece of paper showing that the written statement or the so called Management's affidavit was really filed by the respondent / Management Company. It appears to have been filed by the Management with illegible signs. Similarly MW1 V.K. Taneja has no where filed any authorization from the Board of Directors / Managing Director / Directors of this company. He has not filed any Resolution of any Board of Directors of the said respondent / Management company. There is no Articles of Association showing the constitution of the Board of Directors. Everything has been kept in dark.
12. The Management has not given a chance to this court to look into the fact as to who is defending this claim of the workman. Everything cannot run by presumption. It cannot be presumed here that whoever appeared in the name of the respondent / Management was really the respondent / Management.
13. A company is a legal persona and has a definite identity. There is a specific legal procedure to be followed by a company in instituting / defending legal claims. But the same has not been duly followed here in this case. There is no linkage between the legal persona impleaded in these proceedings and the people contending that they were appearing for this legal persona. Link or relation of this nature cannot be thrust forcibly by the appearing persons. AWARD Page 4 of 8 SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04
14. This court has no objective mechanism to ascertain the identity of the person or persons who apparently defended or tried to defend this claim.
15. In these circumstances, this court has no hesitation in rejecting this piece of evidence led by the so called Management as being inadmissible in law. It is totally insufficient to link it to the respondent / Management which is in fact a company i.e. a person incorporate.
16. Now the case is to be seen as if the claimant / workman, through his own evidence, would prove the case against the respondent / Management. ISSUE NO. 2 :-
17. This reference was sent to this court to examine the illegality and unjustifiability of the Management's action of terminating the services of the claimant / workman Ashok Karamchandani.
18. For this purpose this court has to examine that :-
i. Claimant Ashok Karamchandani was a workman under provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act & ii. That he was protected by law from being removed from the services by the Management.
19. Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines the workman as :-
"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, AWARD Page 5 of 8 SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04 discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person :-
i. who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or ii. who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or iii. who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or iv. who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by the reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
20. Section 2 (s) (iv) Industrial Disputes Act says that a person who is employed in the supervisor category and draws wages exceeding Rs.1,600/- p.m., is not entitled to raise an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
21. In this case the workman relied upon several documents in support of his claim.
The first of such document is Ex. WW1/1 i.e. a letter whereby he was promoted to the supervisory grade - I as a dispatch supervisor w.e.f. 01.04.1991. As her his statement and the affidavit his last drawn wages were Rs.2461/- p.m.
22. In the entire claim or affidavit he has nowhere uttered a single word that his designation as dispatch supervisor was only for the name sake or that he was not exercising supervisory powers during the discharge of his duties. Although he asked several questions who was examined as the Management witness but this court has not considered that evidence. Had it been considered by this court, then it would have again gone against AWARD Page 6 of 8 SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04 the present workman because that witness has categorically stated that several people were working under this workman and he was exercising supervisory rights over the working of those people who were working under this workman / claimant Ashok Karamchandani.
23. The position of law is very clear. A party is to win or loose its case purely based on the merits of its own case. If this workman has failed in decanting from his status as supervisor then he cannot be allowed to argue at the time of final arguments that he was not a supervisor.
24. In these circumstances, this court concludes that the workman Ashok Karamchandani was working as a dispatch supervisor in a supervisory capacity with a last drawn salary of Rs.2461/- p.m. Hence he is not a workman because his position as a workman is hit by the provisions of Section 2 (s) (iv) Industrial Disputes Act. The issue no. 2 is hence decided as "Not Proved" by the workman in his favour.
ISSUE NO. 1 :-
25. In this issue the court has to adjudicate on the point whther the workman Ashok Karamchandani had abandoned his services on transfer or his services were terminated illegally and / or unjusticiably by the Management. This court was to further adjudicate on the relief which he would have been found entitled.
26. While deciding the issue no. 2, this court found that the claimant Ashok Karamchandani was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act as defined in Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently there is no question of any protection to this claimant as a workman arising out under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This court cannot decide if the claimant Ashok Karamchandai had abandoned his services on transfer or his services were terminated AWARD Page 7 of 8 SH ASHOK KUMAR VS M/ S RANBAXY LABORATORIES ID No. 841/04 illegally and / or unjustifiably by the Management simply for the reason that he was not a workman under Industrial Disputes Act.
27. This issue is decided accordingly.
RELIEF :-
28. In view of the findings of this court on issue no. 1 and issue no. 2, the claimant is held to be not entitled for any relief.
Reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of the Award be sent to the Secretary(Labour) for necessary compliance.
File be consigned to the Record Room after completing due formalities. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.04.2010 PRATAP S. MALIK POLC XI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi AWARD Page 8 of 8