Delhi District Court
As Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs . Engineeringmazdoor on 8 October, 2007
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. I.S. MEHTA:
PRESIDING OFFICER: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
ROOM NO.2: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
ID No. 36/06.
BETWEEN
The management of
M/s. Bata Shoe Store
1369, Sultan Singh Building
Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006.
AND
Its workman
Sh. Ramagya S/o Sh. Rajman Singh & other
as per Annexure-A as represented by
Shri Baubi Gupta, Advocate, Seat No. 101,
K.L. Sharma Block, Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi-110054.
Date of Institution :- 13.07.2006.
Date of Reserve for Award :- 03.10.2007.
Date of passing of Award :- 08.10.2007.
AWARD
Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has
referred this dispute arising between the parties, named above for adjudication vi
notification No.F.24(2078)/05/Lab./1243-47 Dated 04.07.2006 with the followin
term of the reference :-
''Whether the workmen S/Sh. Ramagya S/o Sh. Rajman
Singh & Others as shown in Annexure-A are entitled
to be regularized in the services from the initial date
of their joining & if so, what directions are necessary
in this respect?''
A N N E X U R E - 'A'
S.No. Name of the Post Date of ESI PF
-: 2 :-
Workman Joining No. No.
1. Ramagya Counter 04.02.1985 5357056 T00090
S/o Rajaman Singh Salesman
2. Nafees Ahmed Counter 23.09.1993 5357061 T0396
S/o Lt. Nannay Khan Salesman
3. Sanjay Yadav Counter 23.12.1999 --- T0398
S/o N.S. Yadav Salesman
4. Amar Singh Counter 10.12.1998 5366458 T0341
S/o Shiv Singh Sales Assistant
1. In the statement of claim, it is stated that the workmen concerned have
fulfilled all the qualification for their respective posts. The management are no
maintaining proper records of the workmen concerned and also not providing leg
benefits such as, minimum wages, bonus, yearly leave, casual leave, etc. which t
workmen from time to time. The P.F. and E.S.I. contribution was deducted from
their salary, but not deposited with the appropriate authority. It is further stated
inspite of so many years service of the workmen, they have not been treated a
permanent employees, whereas, their colleague with same status and condition
have got the permanent position with the management.
2. As per S.O.R. of the management, the workmen have only entitled for six months as temporary basis and after that, workmen should have been appointed permanent position, therefore, they are entitled for permanent position since the joining along with difference of salary between temporary and permanent pay scal from the date of completion of temporary period. The management is indulging i unfair labour practice by not giving their legitimate benefits/ due. A demand notic dated 10.02.2005 was sent. It is further stated that the action of the management arbitrary and discriminatory as the management regularized several workers juni -: 3 :- to the workmen concerned without any justification. It is prayed that an award m be passed in favour of the workmen against the management.
3. On the other hand, the management has filed written statement stating therein that the workmen concerned are engaged on casual and temporary basis their period of service has never been fixed or regular. They are only engaged as per requirement at the particular shop by the Shop Manager with the sanction of Regional Head Office.
4. It is further stated that the regularization and recruitment on permanent basis is carried on the basis of the test conducted by the management. The said is open to all workmen who fulfill the requisite qualifications, thereafter, the qualified candidate undergoes written test, interview and thereafter medical tes and finally, he get appointment letter, but present workmen have not appeared failed in the aforesaid test. It is denied that the management does not maintain record of their workmen and there is no discriminatory behavior or process by th management. The workmen concerned do not fulfill the requisite qualification a well as requirements for a permanent position. No demand notice was received b the management. All other allegations / contentions made in the claim, hav completely been denied and it is prayed that the claim of the workmen is liable rejected.
5. Rejoinder was filed wherein all the contentions raised in the written statement were controverted and those of the statement of claim were reiterated.
6. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- -: 4 :-
1. Whether the workmen S/Sh. Ramagya S/o Sh.Rajman Singh & Others as shown in Annexure-A are entitled to be regularized in the services from the initial date of their joining & if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?''
2. Relief.
7. In support of their claim, the workmen have examined themselves as WW1- Ramgaya, WW2- Nafees Ahmed, WW3- Sanjay Yadav and WW4- Amar Singh and proved their respective affidavit in evidence and have also relied upon the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/10. They have also led additional evidence and relied upon the documents Ex.WW1/11 to Ex.WW1/14. On the other hand, management has examined Mr. S.S. Mukherjee- Assistant Manager of the management.
8. I have heard the ARs of the respective parties and have perused the record and my findings are as under :-
9. Learned ARW- Mr. Deepak Kohli has submitted that the management is indulging in unfair labour practice by not maintaining proper records of the workmen concerned and not providing legal benefits to them. The workmen despite service of so many year have not been regularized, whereas the juniors to the workmen concerned have been regularized by the management. He has further submitted that the workmen fulfill the qualification as per the requirement of th management. Learned 2006case;
ARW has relied upon the (12) SCALE 156titled as OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPN. LTD. VS. ENGINEERINGMAZDOOR SANGH; STATEOF UP & ORS. VS. MATA DEEN and STATEOF UP & ORS. -: 5 :- VS. PUTTI LAL.
10. On the other hand, Learned ARM- Mr. Sanjeev Sagar opposes the contentions of the workmen and submitted that the management is not indulging any type of unfair labour practice and is maintaining proper record of the workmen He has further submitted that the there is a test conducted by the management, get a permanent position with the management and the present workmen hav failed to qualify the said test and further submitted that the workmen are n entitled to any relief, therefore, claim of the workman be rejected.
11. During the cross-examination, all the workmen have admitted that the management regularly conduct an examination/ test for regularization of th temporary employees. They have further admitted that who have passed the Recruitment Test are posted at different places. They have also admitted that the are still working fortnightly means salary of 14 days and used to receive wages o daily wage basis. The aforesaid admissions made by the workmen are reproduced as under :-
"It is correct that Bata conducts recruitment exam, medical test and hold interview for regularization of temporary shop employees. Mr. Sanjeet Munjal cleared the recruitment test and presently posted as Manager at Subzi Mandi Shop and Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma passed Recruitment Test and is presently posted as Sales Man at Clock Tower Shop and likewise there are many workmen. It is correct that I am still working in Bata Shoe Shop fortnightly means salary of 14 days. It is correct that I used to receive wages fortnightly calculated on daily wage basis."-: 6 :-
12. The workmen have further admitted that they have never restricted by the management to appear in the test/ examination. The said admission is reproduced as under :-
"I was never restricted by the management to appear in the recruitment test."
13. Since, the management is regularly conducting test /examination for regularizing the temporary employees under the rules of the management, it is t workmen who failed to fulfill the required conditions of the management, however, the workmen themselves admitted that who have cleared the test / examination became the permanent employee of the management and are still serving in different part of the country, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the workmen are no help to them, unless qualify the test, particularly when there is no allegatio of biasness and conducting the regular written examination/ test on the part of management by the workmen.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the workmen are not entitled to any relief towards the present reference. The reference is answered against the workmen. Award passed, accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DATED : 08.10.2007.
[ I.S. MEHTA ] PRESIDING OFFICER:
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
DELHI.