Delhi District Court
Rajrup Singh vs M/S Hans Foundation on 18 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GOEL:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI,
Ref. No. no. F-24(18)/Lab./SD/2017/1575
Dated : 20.01.2017
LIR NO. 16/2017
Workman
Subedar Major (Retd) Rajrup Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jaikishan Sharma, Aged - 58 years,
mobile No. 9899476734,
House No. CB-234, III Floor,
Naraina Village, Post Naraina,
New Delhi 110028
Vs.
The Management of
M/s The Hans Foundation,
C-301-302 (IIIrd Floor), Ansal Plaza,
Hudco Place, Khel Gaon Road,
Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi - 110049.
Date of Institution : 09.02.2017
Date of presentation : 14.03.2023
before this court
Date of Arguments : 18.01.2024
Date of Award : 18.01.2024
AWARD
1. That the workman had filed an application dated
10.08.2016 in the office of Ld. Dy. Labour Commissioner (South
District), New and after hearing both the parties, ld. Dy. Labour
Commissioner vide order no. F-24(18)/Lab./SD/2017/1575 dated
20.01.2017 has referred this dispute arising between the parties
named above for adjudication to this Tribunal with following
terms of the reference:-
LIR NO. 16/2017 Page 1 of 5
""Whether Subedar Major (Retd) Rajrup Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jaikishan Sharma, Aged-58 years is
covered under the definition of workman as
defined u/s 2s of the ID Act, 1947 and if so, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
"Whether Subedar Major (Retd) Rajrup Singh S/o
Late Sh. Jaikishan Sharma, Aged - 58 years has
settled his full and final account on his own or his
services 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 claimed by the claimant that he is challenging the
arbitrary action of the Respondent/management for acting in
gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and the action of the Respondent to retrench the applicant vide The Hans Foundation, New Delhi letter No THF/HR/2016- 17/002 dated 27th April 2016 was illegal and being aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, he has filed present claim. That the applicant was workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act, 1947. He was employed in The Hans Foundation, New Delhi as an administrative Staff on 01 December 2010 and was assigned the following clerical duties :-
(i) Deals with general correspondence.
(ii) Deals with local purchase correspondence.
(iii) Maintain purchase items ledger.
(iv) NGO funding correspondence.
(v) Monitoring of incoming and outgoing mail.
(vi) Deals with Stock & Stationary items.
(vii) Monitor inward and outward movement of office assets/material.
(viii) Organize events and conferences.
(ix) To maintain minutes book of conference/meeting.
(x) To ensure serviceability of office equipments.LIR NO. 16/2017 Page 2 of 5
(xi) Vendor negotiation and Management.
(xii) Liaison with Govt Offices and statutory compliances
(xiii) To execute registry/agreement for land purchase/ donated to THF
(xiv) Monitor the electric, telephone and water complaints.
(xv) Any other duties assigned by Chief Executive Officer.
3. Thereafter, the pay of applicant was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The main grievance of the applicant was that there was no change in the organization in terms of economical and structural. In fact, the organization is growing day by day and strength of the employees has become more than double since its existence. Simultaneously, the work load of administration department has also increased in many fold. The reason for review the cadre strength due to reorganization drive and introducing new systems as mentioned in the relieving letter dated 27th April 2016 does not arise. There were some official differences between the management and the applicant in admitting the expenses out of FCRA Account. As an Accounts Officer, the applicant was required to verify all the expenses including personal expenses of employees, booked out of FCRA account.
4. The applicant further has taken ground of illegal retrenchment stating that the applicant was not surplus as mentioned in his relieving letter dated 27 April 2016. He had been victimized under a criminal conspiracy due to objections raised on misappropriation of fund and illegal personal claims. In terms of Section 2 (ra) of ID Act 1947 and IPC 120A, Respondent committed offence which are punishable under Section 25U of ID Act 1947 and IPC 120B respectively. That the LIR NO. 16/2017 Page 3 of 5 applicant was relieved from his duty with effect from 30 April 2016 without paying one month salary for notice period and retrenchment compensations. Therefore, respondent did not comply the provision of Section 25F of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 which was mandatory, hence, present claim was filed.
5. Reply/Written statement has been filed by the management, wherein the management has denied the case of the workman in toto and pleaded that the same be dismissed with cost.
6. After the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 26.02.2018:
i) As per terms of reference. OPW
ii) Relief.
7. To prove his case, the workman Sh. Subedar Major (Retd.) Rajrup examined himself as WW-1. He filed his affidavit as Ex. WW1/A. He was duly cross-examined by ld. AR for the management and thereafter, WE was closed.
8. On the other hand, management to prove its case examined one Sh. Prabhat Kumar Jha, who filed his affidavit Ex. MW1/A alongwith certain documents in lieu of his examination in chief. He was cross-examined by ld. AR for the workman and thereafter, ME was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard arguments from both parties at length and have gone through the case laws relied upon by the management.
10. During the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the workman submitted that since the matter pertains to individual workman and there is no espousal in the present matter, hence, he does not wish to continue with the present matter. The matter may be LIR NO. 16/2017 Page 4 of 5 dismissed as withdrawn and award to this effect be passed. He further stated that workman may be given the liberty to pursue the proper remedy available with him as per law.
11. Separate statement of both workman as well as ld. Counsel/AR for the workman has been recorded jointly.
12. In view of their joint statement, present reference is dismissed as withdrawn. The workman is at liberty to pursue the proper remedy available with him as per law. The Award is passed accordingly.
13. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as per rules. File be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY GOEL Date:
Announced in the open Tribunal GOEL 2024.01.18 14:43:32 on this 18.01.2024. +0530 (Ajay Goel) POIT-I/RADC, New Delhi LIR NO. 16/2017 Page 5 of 5