Delhi District Court
Permanent Address Of The vs M/S Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd on 9 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR : PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR
COURT, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Industrial Dispute LIR No. 9699/2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN :
Sh. Ram Pravesh S/o Sh. Jagdish Mehto
R/o Jhugi No. 107, Punjabi Camp Peera Garhi,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi110056.
(The requisite details of the workman in compliance to judgment of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi titled as "Director General of Works (CPWD) Vs. Laljeet Yadav & Ors. W.P.(C) No.
2540/2021, DOD 16.07.21 are as follows:
Permanent Address of the Workman
Jhugi No. 107, Punjabi Camp Peera Garhi, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi110056.
Present Address of the Workman:
Jhugi No. 107, Punjabi Camp Peera Garhi, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi110056.
Name and Mobile Number of A.R for Workman:
Sh. Ramji Singh, Authorised Representative
F609, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi110032.
Details of one of immediate family member of the Workman
Details not furnished.
AADHAR Card Number of workman and Phone No.
Ph. No. 9717449186
Other details not furnished.
.....Workman
VERSUS
M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
Flat No. 301, Sidgarth Chamber II 35 A,
Kalu Saria Hauz Khas, New Delhi110016.
(Sh. Sumit Behl, Authorized Representative,
Ph. No. 8750595884.
..... Management
Date of Institution : 22.11.2016
Date of Arguments : 09.05.2022
Date of Award : 09.05.2022
AWARD
1.The Dy. Labour Commissioner (District West), Government of NCT of Delhi vide its order No. F24(572)/Lab./SD/2016/25164 dated 10.11.2016, referred an industrial dispute of present worker namely Sh. Ram Pravesh S/o Sh. Jagdish Mehto with the above mentioned management to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference :
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Ram Pravesh S/o Sh. Jagdish Mehto 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. On service of notice, workman has filed statement of claim. The case of the workman as stated in the claim is that he was working as "Driver" with the management since seven years back and his last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/ per month. It is stated that workman was denied the benefit of appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, over time double, minimum wages etc. and when the workman made demand of legal facilities, management got irritated and terminated the services of workman w.e.f 14.09.2015. It is stated that workman has worked with the management for more than 240 days in each calendar month and the workman has been terminated by refusal of duties, orally and without assigning any reason. It is further stated that workman issued demand notice dated 17.03.2016 but no reply was received and thereafter conciliation proceedings were initiated but the same resulted in failure due to adamant and non cooperative attitude of the management. Workman prayed for reinstatement with full back wages, wages and continuity of services with all consequential benefits and interest etc.
3. Notice of statement of claim was issued to the management. Management LIR No. 9699/2016, Ram Parvesh Vs. M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . Page No. 2 of 8 filed written statement and stated that the workman has already settled his dues in a proceedings before the Labour Court and full and final received by him was duly signed by workman. Management further submitted that the workman has concealed the material facts from the Court that he has received appointment letter dated 29.03.2010 from the management wherein workman appointed as Driver of Sh. P. Mukherjee, Marketing Consultant and due to sudden serious illness of Sh. P. Mukherjee, he had to take complete bed rest in April, 2015 and thereafter taking advantage of this, workman started absenting from the work, however, workman was paid till June, 2015. It is further submitted that workman without any intimation had been absented from his work since April, 2015 and accordingly show cause notice dated 10.09.2015 through speed post was sent. It is further stated that management came to know that workman work for other company, while he was employed with management and therefore management issued letter dated 01.10.2015 to the workman, wherein it was informed that workman was terminated from the services of company and the workman neither answered the show cause notice. It is further stated that workman has amicably settled the matter on the advice of Labour Inspector at Shiekh Sarai and also received salary through cheques bearing No. 150672 and 150680 amounting to Rs. 10,883/ and Rs. 3,125/ respectively. It is further submitted that the management replied to the demand notice dated 28.03.2016 and the said reply was received on 14.04.2016.
4. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 20.08.2018 :
(1) Whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally by the management?
(2) Relief.
5. Workman examined himself as WW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the same as Ex.WW1/A. In his evidenciary affidavit the workman has reiterated the contents of the statement of claim and relied upon the documents as under :
(1) Ex.WW1/1 is copy of demand notice.
LIR No. 9699/2016, Ram Parvesh Vs. M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . Page No. 3 of 8 (2) Ex.WW1/2 is postal receipt.
(3) Ex.WW1/3 is complaint dated 28.09.2015 addressed to Assistant Labour Commissioner.
(4) Ex.WW1/4 is copy of identity card issued by the management. (5) Ex.WW1/5 is copy of statement of claim filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner.
(6) Ex.WW1/6 is copy of statement.
(7) Ex.WW1/7 is copy of ESI.
WW1 has not been cross examined by A.R for management despite opportunity as none appeared for the management and the presence of management presumed under Rule 22 of the Central Rule I.D Act. Thereafter workman evidence was closed.
6. On the other hand management has failed to examine any witness. Hence management evidence was closed vide order dated 30.03.2022.
7. I have heard the AR for the workman and perused the record. A.R for management did not turn up to advance arguments. No case law referred or relied upon by either of the party.
8. My findings on the issues are as follows; (1) Whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally by the management? OPW Onus to prove this issued was upon the workman. The case of workman as stated in the claim is that he was working as "Driver" with the management since seven years back and his last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/ per month. It is stated that workman was denied the benefit of appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, over time double, minimum wages etc. and when the workman made demand of legal facilities, management got irritated and terminated the services of workman w.e.f 14.09.2015. It is stated that workman has worked with the management for more than 240 days in each calendar month and the workman has been terminated by refusal of duties, orally and without assigning any reason. It is further stated that workman issued demand notice dated 17.03.2016 but no reply was received and LIR No. 9699/2016, Ram Parvesh Vs. M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . Page No. 4 of 8 thereafter conciliation proceedings were initiated but the same resulted in failure due to adamant and non cooperative attitude of the management. Workman prayed for reinstatement with full back wages, wages and continuity of services with all consequential benefits and interest etc.
9. Per contra the management taken the stand workman has already settled his dues in a proceedings before the Labour Court and workman has received appointment letter dated 29.03.2010. It is also stated that workman started absenting from the work, however, workman was paid till June, 2015 and workman without any intimation had been absented from his work since April, 2015 and accordingly show cause notice dated 10.09.2015 through speed post was sent. It is further stated that management came to know that workman work for other company, while he was employed with management and therefore management issued letter dated 01.10.2015 to the workman, wherein it was informed that workman was terminated from the services of company. It is further stated that workman has amicably settled the matter on the advice of Labour Inspector at Shiekh Sarai and also received salary through cheques bearing No. 150672 and 150680 amounting to Rs. 10,883/ and Rs. 3,125/ respectively. It is further submitted that the management replied to the demand notice dated 28.03.2016 and the said reply was received on 14.04.2016.
10. The management has not led any evidence to prove the fact that the workman has absenting from his job. On the other hand the workman examined himself as WW1 and has testified that he was employed with the management for the last seven years since 22.07.2007 as Driver and his last drawn wages were Rs. 12,000/ per month. The deposition of the workman coupled with documents i.e demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and its postal receipt Ex.WW1/2, complaint dated 28.09.2015 to Assistant Labour Commissioner, copy of identity card issued by the management Ex.WW1/4, copy of claim filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner Ex.WW1/5, copy of statement of PF Ex.WW1/6 and copy of ESI card Ex.WW1/7, which established on record that he was in the employment of the management as a Driver with last drawn salary of Rs. 12,000/ per month. It is also a fact that he was in the employment up till 14.09.2015. The workman has thus established on record that he LIR No. 9699/2016, Ram Parvesh Vs. M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . Page No. 5 of 8 was serving with the management as Driver and last drawn wages were Rs. 12,000/ per month. While management has claimed that he was absenting from the job since April, 2015. However the management has not led any evidence to establish that the workman has absented from the job.
11. As far as the unauthorized absence of the workman is concerned the workman has been able to show that he was terminated on 14.09.2015. No further step by way of enquiry was taken by the management. No show cause notice etc. were served upon the workman. The workman has relied upon the relevant documents referred above in support of the claim. There is no document proved on record placed by the management to show that workman was issued any notice/charge sheet for non joining his duties or subsequent enquiry was made against him. The workman on the other hand placed on record the legal notice issued to the management. Merely bald averments are not sufficient to prove the contentions by the management that workman had stopped to come to the services of management.
12. Management has failed to cross examine the workman witness/WW1. From 22.01.2020 to 30.03.2022 A.R for management has stopped appearing before the Court. On 22.01.2020 the opportunity of the management to cross examine the workman witness was closed and the case was adjourned for Management evidence. But despite sufficient opportunity the management again failed to lead its evidence to rebut the claim of the workman. The opportunity of the management to led evidence was also closed on 30.03.2022. Hence, now as a result of this status of evidence of the workman is uncontroverted because the management has neither cross examined the workman nor has led any evidence to rebut the workman evidence. On the basis of uncontroverted testimony of the workman, it stands proved on record that he was working with the Management as Driver and his services were terminated on 14.09.20155 without assigning any reason and in violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. In these circumstances, on the basis of uncontroverted evidence, it is held that the service of the workman was terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management as it has been done without the compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act. The only question that now LIR No. 9699/2016, Ram Parvesh Vs. M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . Page No. 6 of 8 remains to be determined is the relief to be granted to the workman. Workman has also stated in his claim that since the date of his termination, he is unemployed. Accordingly issue No. 1 is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
13. RELIEF :
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Employers, Management of central P & D Inst. Ltd Vs Union of India & Another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 633 that "it is not always mandatory to order reinstatement after holding the termination illegal and instead compensation can be granted by the court." Similar views are expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs Krishan Devi and Bhagwati Devi & Ors. ILR (2007) I Delhi 219 wherein it is held by the court that "even if the termination of a person is held illegal, Labour Court is not supposed to direct reinstatement along with full back wages and the relief can be moulded according to the facts and circumstances of each case and the Labour Court can allow compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement and back wages."
14. Now coming to the case in hand, it be seen that the workman/claimant has been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management on 14.09.2015. Much time has elapsed since date of his termination, hence, it cannot be presumed that he would remain idle for such a long period. Thus, in such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant lump sum compensation to the workman/claimant instead of his reinstatement. Accordingly, I grant a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) to the workman/claimant instead of his reinstatement, earned wages and back wages under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, considering the tenure of his service which is about seven years, damages for delay and resultant litigation. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the management to the workman/claimant within one month from the date when this award becomes enforceable failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date it becomes due till the time it is realized. Award is passed LIR No. 9699/2016, Ram Parvesh Vs. M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . Page No. 7 of 8 accordingly. Reference is answered accordingly. Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC, Copy of the same be also delivered to both the parties as well as to the concerned department through electronic mode or through Dak, if possible.
Digitally signed File be consigned to record room after due compliance. by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH Date: Announced in the open court. KUMAR 2022.05.12 10:11:16 +0530 Dated : May 09, 2022. (Mukesh Kumar) Presiding Officer Labour Court Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi. LIR No. 9699/2016, Ram Parvesh Vs. M/s Cross Link Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . Page No. 8 of 8