Delhi High Court
Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Secretary ... on 3 December, 2007
Author: J.M. Malik
Bench: J.M. Malik
JUDGMENT J.M. Malik, J.
1. The management / petitioner, M/s Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., has called into question the award passed by Sh. S.K. Sarvaria, Presiding Officer Labour Court dated 15.09.2007, wherein, workman Sh. Digambar Singh Rawat, respondent No. 2 was found entitled to an amount of Rs. 39,650/- from the management / petitioner by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages.
2. Adumbrated in brief, the case of the workman / respondent No. 2 is as follows. He was working with the management since October 2000 as a Driver. His last drawn wages were Rs. 5,860/- per month. He was not given appointment letter, yearly or casual leave, overtime etc. and on repeated demands, the management provided ESI and PF facilities to him in the year 2002. The workman was getting his house constructed in Burari, Delhi, and took leave from 05.07.2004 to 18.07.2004. He attend his duties from 19.07.2004 to 21.07.2004. On 21.07.2004, the workman demanded advance from the management but the management got annoyed, misbehaved with him and asked him to give his resignation. The workman refused to tender his resignation. Consequently, the services of the workman were terminated illegally. The workman sent a demand notice dated 11.09.2004, which was replied by the management vide reply dated 20.09.2004. The workman challenged his above said termination on the grounds that no enquiry was held and his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the workman he remained unemployed since the date of termination of his services. He prayed reinstatement with continuity of previous service and full back wages.
3. The petitioner contested the claim of the workman / respondent No. 2 tooth and nail. According to it, the workman joined its services as Driver w.e.f. 25.05.2002 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4,000/- per month plus other benefits. The workman remained absent of his own accord and voluntarily stopped coming to duty since 22.07.2004 without sanction of the management. On the contrary, the petitioner / management sent a letter dated 11.09.2004 and show cause notice dated 05.10.2004, wherein, the workman was called upon to report for duty but he failed to do the needful. Respondent No. 2/ workman used to report to duty in the factory situated at Sonepat. However, sometimes when there was factory work at Delhi, he used to drive the vehicle in Delhi also. The respondent No. 2 / workman sometimes visited along with the Director at registered office at A-309, Basement, Azad Pur, Delhi and also dropped one of the company directors to his residence at B-3/8, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. Again, the petitioner / management offered the job to the respondent No. 2/ workman before the Conciliation Officer and asked him to report for duty vide letters dated 22.11.2004, 11.01.2005, 18.03.2005 and 12.05.2005 but the workman / respondent No. 2 refused to join the duty at Sonepat contending that he was serving in Delhi.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner / management at the time of admission of this case. He vehemently argued that a number of letters were sent to the workman / respondent No. 2 to join the duty at Sonepat but he declined. The attention of the court was drawn towards letter written by the petitioner / management dated 20.09.2004 in response to the notice received from the workman / respondent No. 2. This letter was sent on the letter pad of M/s Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Nathupur, Distt. Sonepat. It was mentioned in the letter, "if your client wishes to join his duties, kindly direct him to resume the duty within a week from the receipt of this letter". The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards para 13 of the impugned judgment, wherein, it is mentioned that management sent a show cause notice dated 05.10.2004, Ex. WW1/M9 but the workman neither replied nor reported for duty. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that before the Conciliation Officer, management offered job to the workman at Sonepat factory but the workman did not accede to the said offer. Again, this offer was repeated by the management in written statement submitted before the Tribunal. Para 9 of the written statement is reproduced as follows :
9. The contents of para No. 9 are absolutely wrong and he was offered the job before the Conciliation Officer directing him to report for duty vide letters dated 22.11.2004, 11.01.2005, 18.03.2005 and 12.05.2005 Along with the proof of record of the workman at Sonepat, which he refused altogether and I am serving in Delhi and not at Sonepat. Whereas the appointment letter and wages register for the last two years clearly shows that he has been in the employment of Management at Sonepat and used to take the wages at Sonepat on the wages register and also covered under E.S.I and Provident Fund Schemes being run at Karnal. A Return to his effect has also been submitted accordingly.
However, the above said offer made in the written statement was not accepted by the workman / respondent No. 2.
5. The question now to the fore is whether respondent No. 2 / workman was working at Delhi or Sonepat? This is indisputable fact that the management had its registered office at Delhi and factory at Sonepat. The written statement filed by the petitioner / management itself goes to reveal that the Director of the management was living at Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner has its registered office at A-309, Basement, Azad Pur, Delhi. This is also admitted fact that the workman/respondent No. 2 used to drop the Director of the management at his residence situated in Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi.
6. Above all is the documentary proof furnished by the petitioner himself. They have produced on record Ex. WW1/M1 to Ex. WW1/M12, the copies of Return submitted by the management / petitioner to E.S.I Along with list of employees. It also contains the name of workman / respondent No. 2. He has been shown as employee of the petitioner. His place of duty is shown as Azad Pur, Delhi. It goes to clear the air of doubt. The cat is out of the bag. The employment letter and wages register pale into insignificance on the face of solid and unflappable evidence in above said ESI record.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner went on to beat around the bush and did not touch the heart of the problem. Attempts were made to obfuscate the real controversy. The petitioner partakes more of illusion than reality in assuming that the offer made by him to work at Sonepat would go a long way to ring the bell. The offer made by management was nothing but an eye wash. His story does not just stack up. All these facts and circumstances clearly go to prove that the petitioner / management has terminated the services of the workman / respondent No. 2 on 21.07.2004 illegally and without conducting any enquiry in this regard.
8. The Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 had completed one year of continuous service with the management or 240 days of service proceeding the date of termination of his services, even, it is assumed that the workman joined the duty on 25.02.2004.
9. No other point was urged before me. The petitioner did not pick up a conflict regarding other matters including the question of reinstatement of service.
10. In view of this discussion, I find that the petitioner is trying to kick against the pricks. The writ petition being meritless is hereby dismissed at admission stage.
CM No. 16799/2007The application has rendered infructuous in view of the dismissal of the petition.