Delhi District Court
Sessions Judge: Presiding Officer vs Sh. Pran Gopal Chatterjee Raised An on 14 January, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUKHDEV SINGH, ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE: PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT
NO. VII, DELHI.
I.D. NO. : 259/2000
Date of institution : 9.11.2000
Award reserved for : 14.1.2010
Award passed on : 14.1.2010
BETWEEN
The workman
Shri Pran Gopal Chatterjee,
267, Kailash Hills, New Delhi-65.
AND
The management of
M/s Jain Sons Export Corporation
(Jainsons Clothing Corp.),
E-42, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-1.
Ref.: F.24(2802)/2000-Lab./32499-503 dated 22.9.2000.
AWARD
1.Workman Sh. Pran Gopal Chatterjee raised an industrial dispute against his illegal termination from the services, which was referred to this court for adjudication by the Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory 1 Delhi, in the following terms of reference :-
"Whether the services of Sh. Pran Gopal Chatterjee 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?"
2. It is, inter alia, stated in the statement of claim that the Workman was an employee of M/s Jain Sons Exports Corporation (formerly known as Jain Sons Clothing Corporation). On 1.2.1999, he was not allowed to enter the office of the Management and discharge his duty. No termination letter was given to him. No salary for the month of November, 1999 was given.
He joined the Management in the first week of June, 1975 on a consolidated salary of Rs.350/- per month. He was discharging the duties of an office boy/assistant in store. No appointment letter was issued to him. No service record was kept, though he used to sign the attendance register. On 1.9.1976, the name of the Workman was entered into salary register, however, his salary remained to be Rs.350/-.
It is stated that the main duties of the Workman was clerical/manual as store-keeper viz. To keep inventories of the stores, to assist the officials of production department and run 2 errands. He was never authorised to inspect or examine the work of persons subordinate to him. He was posted at several places in India and abroad to run errands and work in store as store-keeper of the said Management.
In August, 1999 he was posted at Kirti Nagar Branch and he was orally asked to report at Faridabad office to another sister concern of the Management. During his tenure at Faridabad, the Workman was told by the Management that he need not sign the attendance register. Further, he was orally asked to report Jain Sons Export Corporation Office at E-42, Connaught Place, New Delhi w.e.f. 25.11.1999. When he reported there, the Management started pressuring the said Workman to resign from the said organisation. He was not allowed to sign the attendance register w.e.f. 29.11.1999 though from 25.11.1999 to 30.11.1999, he was made to sign on computer printouts.
He sent a letter dated 1.12.1999 to the Management and protested against the illegal and high-handed act of the Management and requested the Management to allow him to perform duties peacefully. After receiving the said letter, the Management called him in his Connuaght Place and threatened with dire consequences and asked him to resign. 3
He was never issued any termination letter or assigned any reason for termination. No enquiry was ever held nor his dues were cleared. On the intervention of Labour Inspector, the Management paid earned wages of the Workman during the said conciliation proceedings. The Management, however, refused to pay the other dues of the Workman. Thus, the Workman was entitled to all pays and allowances and other dues w.e.f. 1.12.1999.
3. In the Written Statement, the Management has taken various pleas. The Workman was designated and working as Supervisor/Manager drawing a salary of Rs. 9000/- per month. He was the head and overall in-charge of the manufacturing unit at 9/45, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi and exercised supervisory and managerial powers. He used to negotiate and finalise the business terms with the fabricator, settle the rates, verify and pass their bills, reject goods, if found not upto mark by the checking staff working under him. They have further stated that to promote the business interests of the Management, the claimant visited Moscow as Business Executive in 1994, 1995 and 1996. During his tenure, he used to issue debit notes and warranties on behalf of the Management as he was working 4 in managerial capacity. Thus, the claimant was not a "Workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
They have denied that they did not allow the Workman to enter the premises of Management. In fact, the
Management had been going through recession and the services of the claimant became redundant/surplus. The claimant was adjusted and deputed with M/s Jainsons Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., at Faridabad, where the Management had a dealership of Daewoo Motors India Ltd. The said company was too having difficulty in functioning, the claimant saw no future in the said company and offered his resignation to the Management. He stopped reporting for duties w.e.f. 1.12.1999, but did not tender any written resignation letter. Thus, he was told to tender his resignation in writing and get his all legal dues.
They have denied all other pleas of the Claimant parawise except that the claimant joined the Management on salary of Rs. 350/- per month as an Assistant and his last drawn salary was Rs.9,000/- per month and reiterated their stand that the claimant does not fall within the definition of "Workman" and he himself abandoned the services of the Management. Thus, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for. 5
4. In the replication, Workman has controverted the pleas of the Management and has re-asserted his own pleas.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the applicant is not a workman as defined in Sec. 2(s) of I.D. Act?
(ii) Whether the applicant has abandoned the job on his own?
(iii) As per terms of reference.
6. I have heard learned AR for the Workman and have perused the material placed on record. AR for the Management did not appear to argue in spite of opportunities. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1:
7. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the workman. In support of this, workman Pran Gopal Chatterjee has examined himself as WW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been got exhibited as EX.WW1/A alongwith documents from EX.WW1/1 to 12. He has also examined Shri Chiranjee Lal as 6 WW-2 and Shri Dhan Bahadur as WW-3 who have deposed on affidavit which have been got exhibited as EX.WW2/A and EX.WW3/A respectively. The relevant testimony of these witnesses is extracted from their affidavits.
Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 has stated in his testimony that in the first week of June 1975, he joined M/s Jain Sons Clothing Corporation on a consolidated salary of Rs.350/- p.m. He was discharging the duties of an office boy / assistant in the store department of the management. No appointment letter was issued to him. He has further deposed that it was also the practice of the management not to issue letters of appointment in general. No record of his service was kept though he used to sign the attendance register.
On 1.9.1997, his name was entered into the salary register and his salary remained constant at Rs.350/- p.m. Later on, there was gradual increase in his salary.
He has further deposed that the management was having branch offices in Delhi, Faridabad, Russia, etc. It was also the practice of the management to use its employees for other branches/ organizations and sister organizations. In the course of years he was entrusted with work of store assistant / store keeper. His last drawn salary was approximately 7 Rs.9,000/- p.m. His main duty was clerical / manual as store keeper / assistant mainly to keep inventories of the stores and to assist the officials of the production department and run errands. He was never authorised by the management to oversee the work of others. He was not doing any work which required him to look after or inspect or examine the work of the persons subordinate to him. He being the most trusted employee was posted in several places in India and abroad to run errands and work in the store as store keeper of the said management.
He has further deposed that though he was called as "supervisor" by the management, but he never conducted any supervisory work not even terminal supervisory work. He has further deposed that attendance register maintained by the management did not indicate his post.
He has further deposed that he was appointed in a clandestine manner and the management did not bother to issue him any appointment letter. He had to work in Jainsons Exports Corporation (formerly known as Jain Sons Clothing Corporation), Jainsons Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and various branches and sister organizations in India and abroad. However, the management used to pay wages to him on the pay roll of Jainsons Exports Corporation only. He has got exhibited copy 8 of challans; Field Technical Report Submission Forms of Daewoo Motors India Ltd.; Service Department, copy of warranty claim submission form of Daewoo Motors India Ltd. with regard to Matiz Car on behalf of Jainsons Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., the copy of free service coupon submission form DCM Daewoo Motors Ltd. and Jainsons Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in support of his working in various establishment of the said management which have been got exhibited as EX.WW1/1 to 1/4. He has also got exhibited copy of Payment of Wages Register for the month of April to June 98, August to October 99, as EX.WW1/5.
8. Chiranjee Lal WW-2 has stated in his testimony that he was an employee of the management w.e.f. 3.4.1974 till 15.7.2001 as a "Fabric Cutter" with the management. Shri Pran Gopal Chatterjee was also working in the management since 1975 who was discharging the duties of an office boy / assistant in the store department of the management. His main duty was clerical / manual as store keeper / assistant to keep inventories of the store and to assist the officials and officers of the production department and run errands. He was also posted alone to run errands and work in the store and store keeper of 9 the management. He never worked as an officer or supervisor. During his service he was doing clerical / manual work as store keeper / assistant. He used to keep inventories / details of the stores and assist the officials / officers of the production department and run errands.
9. Shri Dhan Bahadur WW-3 has stated in his testimony that he was an employee of the management w.e.f. 1978 to 1999 as peon cum "Machine Operator" in the production department. Shri Pran Gopal Chatterjee was also working in the management. During his tenure, he was discharging the duties of assistant in the store department of the management and later on he became store keeper. His main duty was clerical / manual as store keeper / assistant to keep inventories of the store and to assist the officials and officers of the production department and run errands. He was also posted alone to run errands and work in the store and store keeper of the management. He never worked as an officer or supervisor. During his service he was doing clerical / manual work as store keeper / assistant. He used to keep inventories / details of the stores and assist the officials / officers of the production department and run errands. 10
10. In defence, management has examined Shri Krishan Kumar Salotra MW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been got exhibited as EX.MW1/A. He has got exhibited documents from EX.MW1/1 to 15. The relevant portion of his testimony is extracted.
He has stated that workman Shri Pran Gopal Chatterjee was last designated and working as supervisor / manager who was drawing a salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. He was the head and over all incharge of the manufacturing unit at Kirti Nagar, Delhi and exercised supervisory and managerial powers. He used to negotiate and finalise the business terms with fabricators, settled the rates, verified and passed their bills, reject goods if not found upto mark by checking staff under him. He used to sanction leave for the staff working under him. He also signed the challans for outward movement of materials.
To promote the business interest of the management, he even visited Moscow as Business Executive in 1994, 1995 and 1996. He has got exhibited copy of the passport alongwith air ticket and form filled for getting Foreign Exchange as EX.MW1/2. During his posting at Jainsons Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., he issued debit notes and warranties on behalf of the management as he was working in managerial capacity. He has 11 got exhibited the documents EX.WW1/M1 to M11. He has also got exhibited a bill as EX.MW1/3.
He has further deposed that Shri Pran Gopal Chatterjee joined the employment of the management as an assistant on a salary of Rs.3,500/- p.m. His last drawn salary was of Rs.9,000/- p.m. and he was highest paid employee. He joined the management in September 1976. His name was entered in the salary register on his joining the employment and he became a member of EPF scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1977. He rose to the possession of the manager and was the over all incharge of the manufacturing unit at Kirti Nagar with last drawn salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. The position last held by the workman was that of manager / supervisor.
He has further stated that the workman being a manager and getting a salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. was not eligible for bonus for the year 1998-99 and thereafter under the Payment of Bonus Act 1965. He was also not entitled to any leave encashment w.e.f. July 1998. He has got exhibited the PF register for the year 1999 as EX.MW1/5.
11. To answer whether the claimant is a "Workman" or not, it would not be out of place to have a look to the definition 12 of Workman which has been given under Section 2 (s) of the Act which reads as under:
"(s) "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 of the purposes of any proceedings 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, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person:-
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 who is employed in the police service or as an 13 officer or other employee of a person; or who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or 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 reasons of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
12. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision clearly indicates that a person would come within the purview of the said definition if he: (i) is employed in any industry; and (ii) performs any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. Thus, a person who performs one or the other jobs mentioned in the aforementioned provisions only would come within the purview of definition of Workman.
13. The definition of workman given under Section 2(s) of the Act has been subject matter of judicial interpretation and the courts have from time to time explained the term of workman. 14
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arkal Govind Raj Rao. Vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 985, where it has been laid down that where an employee has multifarious duties and a question is raised whether he is a Workman or someone other than a Workman, the Court must find out what are the primary and basic duties of the person concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some other work, may not necessarily be in tune with the basic duties, these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the persons concerned. In other words, dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration and the gloss of some additional duties must be rejected while determining the status and character of the person.
15. In Management of Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh, 2005, Vol. 1 L.L.J, 1122, S.C., it was held that the question as to whether the employee has been performing a clerical work or not is required to be 15 determined upon arriving at a finding as regard the dominant nature thereof.
16. In Narsinha Anand Joshi V. Centuary Shipping, LLR 440, it was laid down that to ascertain whether an employee is a Workman, the nature of work of employee, the various duties performed by him, his status and position in the company, his ranking all clearly go to show that he was employed mainly in administrative capacity and any work which can be termed as work of clerical nature done by him was only incidental to his employment in the administrative capacity.
17. Authorised Representative (AR) for the claimant / workman has vehemently argued that the claimant was a workman as the nature of his job was of a clerical. He has further argued that even if he used designation as manager that will not oust him from the definition of 'Workman'. In support of his arguments, AR for the workman has relied upon the judgment of Kerela High Court in Mar Baselius Medical Mission Hospital Vs. Joseph Babu, 2007 LLR 411, wherein 16 it has been laid down that it is the nature of the duty which a determining actor, but not designation.
18. The principles which emerge from the above judgments are as follows:-
(i) Where an employee has multifarious duties, his preliminary and basic duty must be identified and if incidentally, he does some additional duties , they cannot change the character and status of the employees i.e. the dominant purpose of the employment, firstly, is to be taken into consideration.
(ii) Whether an employee is in a supervisory capacity or not, has to be decided by total consideration of the essential nature of his work office, designation and the entire context of his employment.
19. In the light of the above principles, it has to be seen whether the Claimant was a "Workman" or not. For this, a look has to be made to the evidence led by both the parties. 17
20. Firstly, the testimony of Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1, Chiranjee Lal WW-2 and Dhan Bahadur WW-3 is taken up.
21. Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 has described his duties as clerical/ manual as store keeper/ assistant viz to keep inventory of the store and to assist the officials of the production department and run errands. Though he has stated that he was called as supervisor, but he never conducted any supervisory work nor even terminal supervisory work.
In the additional affidavit tendered by the workman as EX.WW1/A1 he has got exhibited documents from EX.WW1/13 to 27, all the documents are TDS certificates issued by the management except two documents EX.WW1/20, 31 to 38. If the TDS certificates are looked into, it is noticed that under the column : name and designation of the employee, only his names finds mention and his designation has been missed over. Since his designation does not find in the TDS certificates an inference arises from this that the management has avoided to specify his designation, the benefit must go to the claimant. In the cross examination he has admitted that he was drawing a salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. and the fabricators used 18 to come to Kirti Nagar factory for taking fabrication assignment, submissions of bills and quantity verification. He has also admitted of having received the original bills of the fabricators as EX.WW1/M1 to M11. From these bills, it has to be seen as to how far he was working in the capacity of supervisor. Though he has admitted of having verified these bills, but he has clarified that he used to put his signatures in token of having checked the short supply. This checking of bills to find out the short supply cannot be termed to be a work supervisory in nature.
22. Shri Chiranjee Lal WW-2 has also admitted in his cross examination that the claimant was working as store keeper and he was not having any power to sanction leave. Similarly Shri Dhan Bahadur WW-3 has also admitted in his cross examination that the claimant was working in the store and he used to issue clothes to the cutting department, to collect ready made clothes from the fabricators, counting of ready made cloth pieces, etc.
23. Shri Krishna Kumar Salotra MW-1 has stated in his testimony that the claimant was not store keeper but store 19 incharge. He has failed to put any appointment letter though he has admitted the salary of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- p.m. He has further admitted that he has signed the affidavit of evidence being the senior most employee on the asking of the management. To quote from his testimony " I signed the affidavit of the evidence being the senior most employee of the management on the asking of the partner of the management". He has failed to depose as to when the workman was designated as supervisor. He has also stated that he never remained posted at Kirti Nagar office. Even in the salary register EX.WW1/5 designation has not been recorded as stated by this witness. Thus from the testimony of Krishna Kumar Salotra it does not come out as to whether the workman was working in a supervisory capacity. Not only this, non mention of the designation of the workman in the salary register EX.WW1/5 goes to show that the management has intentionally avoided to describe the nature of the work done by the workman. Not only this, his version that he has signed the affidavit at the asking of the partner of the management goes to show that the testimony of this witness is not a true version. Thus in the absence of any concrete evidence put on behalf of the management in respect of nature of duties performed by the workman, there is no other 20 option but to back upon the testimony of Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 corroborated by the testimony of Shri Chiranjee Lal WW-2 and Dhan Bahadur WW-3. Thus from the testimony of Pran Gopal Chatterjee, if the dominant purpose of his employment is taken up, it is noticed that he used to work as store keeper whose work was only to keep inventory of the store and to assist the officials of the production department. Even if, incidently he was to perform the work of checking and putting his signatures on the bills submitted by the fabricators that will not change the nature of his job primarily of a store keeper. Therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the claimant was working in the supervisory capacity.
24. Thus from the evidence on record it is evident that claimant Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 was working as a store keeper whose work was of a clerical nature. Therefore, he falls under the definition of workman. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management. ISSUE NO. 2:
25. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the management. In support of this it has examined Shri Krishana Kumar Salotra 21 MW-1. The relevant testimony from his affidavit EX.MW1/A is taken up. He has stated in his affidavit that on 25.11.99 or thereafter the management never pressurized Shri Pran Gopal Chatterjee to resign . He stopped reporting for duties w.e.f. 1.12.99, but did not tender any written resignation letter. He orally resigned and demanded huge amounts from the management to settle his accounts. He has further deposed that his services were never terminated by the management.
26. In Defence, Pran Gopal Chatterjee has stated in his affidavit that after joining the management at the said office no work was assigned to him. He was not allowed to sign attendance register w.e.f. 29.11.99 though from 25.11.99 to 30.11.99, he was made to sign on computer printouts. He has further deposed that he brought these facts to the notice of the management vide his letter dated 1.12.1999 which has been got exhibited as EX.WW1/6. He has also stated that copy of this letter was also forwarded to Labour Commissioner and the same has been got exhibited as EX.WW1/7. After receipt of this letter management called him and threatened him with dire consequences if he did not resign. He refused to succumb to such illegal threats of the management. Thereafter he was 22 further threatened that they physically throw him out, if he did not resign. This was protested by him through a letter of dated 2.12.99 which has been got exhibited as EX.WW1/8.
27. It has been argued on behalf of the Workman that it is not the workman who has abandoned his services, but on the contrary he was not allowed by the management to join the workman. To ascertain whether there has been abandonment of work on the part of the workman, the testimony of workman Shri Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 as well as Shri Krishna Kumar Salotra MW-1 has to be examined.
28. Before examining the testimony of these two witnesses it would not be out of place to note what "Abandonment" means: The Courts have explained the term "Abandonment" from time to time.
29. In G.T. Lad & Others Vs. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd, AIR 1979 SC 582, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of services or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of surrounding circumstances of 23 each case. It was further laid down that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same.
30. In Buckingham Co. Vs. Venkatiah ( 1964) 4 SCR 265, AIR 1964 SC 1272, held that under common law an inference that an employee has abandoned or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances, an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon the service. Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus, whether there has been a voluntary; abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case.
31. In Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 24 No.II & Anr., 82 (1999) DLT 958, it was held that temporary absence does not amount to abandonment of job. For abandonment, it must be proved that the Workman has left the job with clear intention not to return on duty.
32. In the light of these judgments, it has to be seen whether from the evidence on record, it can be inferred that the Workman intended to leave the job or not. If the cross- examination of Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 is looked into, he has admitted in his cross examination that he did not go to his work after 1.12.99. However, he has explained that he was not allowed to enter the premises. To quote from his testimony, " It is correct that that I did not go to my work after 1.12.1999 as I was not allowed to enter the premises." Further he has denied the suggestion that he wanted to resign from the job and resigned orally on 1.12.1999. To substantiate his claim he has put on record EX.WW1/6 to 1/8 which show that he used to go to the office but he was not allowed to sign on the attendance register as well as not assigned any work.
33. In the cross examination of Krishna Kumar Salotra MW-1 he has admitted of management having received letter 25 EX.WW1/7, whereby the workman has stated that he has reported for duty daily, but he has not been allowed to sign the attendance register nor any work has been assigned to him. He has shown his ignorance as to whether the management has replied to this letter EX.WW1/7. Thus from the testimony of workman Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 as well as Krishna Kumar Salotra MW-1, it comes out that the workman used to attend the office daily, but he was not allowed to work. Even it has not come on record whether the management has written any letter to the workman calling upon him to join duty. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the testimony of Pran Gopal Chatterjee WW-1 as well as Krishna Kumar Salotra MW-1 is that the workman has not abandoned the job on his own, but it was the management who has not allowed the workman to work. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case of abandonment of job. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
ISSUE NO. 3:
34. Since the findings on issue no. 1 and 2 have gone against the management and in favour of the workman, certainly the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and he is entitled to the relief.
26 RELIEF:
35. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, reinstatement is not ordered as the manufacturing unit / division of management is stated to have been closed and the workman was surplus. I think that a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his all claims will meet the ends of justice. Therefore an award for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) is passed in favour of the Workmen and against the Management which be paid by the management within a period of one month of the publication of the award, failing which interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (nine percent) would be payable by the management to the workman.
36. In view of above discussion, reference is answered in above terms and award is passed accordingly. Six copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (SUKHDEV SINGH) Dated: 14.1.10. Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge POLC-VII, Karkardooma, Delhi.
27 ID No. 176/96 14.1.10 Present: None.
Vide my separate order award is passed in favour of the workman and against the management. Six copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to record room.
Dt. 14.1.10. (SUKHDEV SINGH) Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge POLC-VII, Karkardooma, Delhi.
28