Delhi District Court
Between The vs The on 11 April, 2023
OLD CASE
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-1, ROUSE AVENUE COURT, NEW DELHI.
PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR
COURT-06, ROUSE AVENUE COURT, NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 342/2017
Date of Institution 30.03.2017
Date of Arguments 02.02.2023
Date of Award 11.04.2023
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN:
Sh. Lakhan Singh, S/o Sh. Khem Chand, Through Rashtriya Trade
Employees Congress (Regd)., 53C, Okhla & Estate, Phase-3, New
Delhi-110020 (Mob. No. 8750115163.
VERSUS
THE MANAGEMENT OF:
1. M/s. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd., 2, Safdarjung Road, New Delhi-
110011.
2. M/s. Tiptop Enterprises, 139, Ground Floor, EWS Flats, Pocket-9,
Phase-1, Nasirpur, New Delhi-110045.
AWARD
1. By this award, I shall dispose of the reference sent by the Joint
Labour Commissioner (District North West), Labour Department, Govt.
of the National Capital Territory of Delhi arising between the parties
named above to this court vide notification No.
F.24(13)DLC/NDD/16/66, dated 24.01.2017 with the following terms of
reference:-
"Whether the services of Sh. Lakhan Singh aged 38 years, S/o Sh.
Khem Chand 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?"
LIR No. 342-2017 1
2. Notice of reference was sent to the workman/his union with
directions to file statement of claim. Upon service, claim was filed by
workman thereby pleading that management is running its business in the
name and style of M/s Tiptop Enterprises. It is averred that management
No. 2 has appointed the workman as Safai Karamchari on 12.08.2009 and
he was lastly drawing the salary @ Rs. 9330/- per month and since then,
the workman was working very honestly and diligently. It is also pleaded
that after appointment, the management No. 2 sent the workman to the
management No. 1 for working on its behalf and since then to till date,
the workman was working with the management No. 1 but all the
wages/salary were provided by the management No. 2 to the workman. It
is averred that workman concerned had been in the employment of the
management since long and was performing his respective duties with the
entire satisfaction of the managements and never given any chance of
complaint to the managements.
3. It is further averred that management No. 2 was also not providing
the other legal facilities to the workman as granted under different labour
laws and even the workman was being paid wages less than the minimum
rate affixed by Government. It is stated that workman was demanding the
legal facilities from management No. 2 but no heed was paid towards his
demands and rather, management No. 2 got annoyed and started to
victimize the workman. It is averred that management No. 2 terminated
the workman on 27.03.2014 from his services with malafide and
dishonest intention and without any notice or charge sheet. It is stated
that action of management in terminating the services of the workman
concerned is illegal and unjustified. Thereafter, workman sent demand
notice dated 23.05.2014 to the managements through registered AD and
speed post through Labour Union for his reinstatement but in spite of the
receipt of said demand notice, the workman was not taken back on duty
and management gave no reply to same. Thereafter, one claim was also
filed before Conciliation Officer and management was called in said
proceedings but dispute could not be settled and same was referred to the
LIR No. 342-2017 2
court for adjudication. Thereafter, present claim petition was filed by
present workman thereby seeking relief as per prayer clause of claim.
4. Notice of claim was sent to the managements which was served
upon managements and management No. 1 filed written statement. In
written statement, management No. 1 took preliminary objections to the
effect that no employer-employee relationship exists or ever existed
between the parties and workman has not come to the court with clean
hands. On merits, it was stated that management No. 2 is a contractor
duly engaged by the management No. 1 for supply of housekeeping
employees on requirement basis and although, it is the prerogative of the
management No. 2 to depute any specific employee at any specific place
as per the requirement of its customer/client. It was also stated that
management No.1 has no reason or occasion to engage the claimant at its
establishment due to absence of employer-employee relationship between
the claimant and management No. 1. It was also stated that management
No. 1 never received any demand notice as alleged.
5. Management No. 2 filed separate written statement wherein
preliminary objections were raised to the effect that claim filed by
claimant is not maintainable as after getting his P.F. account finally
settled, the claimant does not come within the scope of workman as
defined under the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute
Act. It was also stated that claim raised by claimant is not an industrial
dispute as per the requirement of section 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes
Act for the reason that services of claimant have not been terminated by
management No. 2 and in absence of retrenchment/termination of
service, there is no violation of provisions of I. D. Act. It was also stated
that present dispute has been raised after a delay of about 2 ¼ years
without filing any application and without assigning any reason in this
regard. It was also stated that management No. 2 never terminated the
services of the workman and he himself voluntarily left the job by his
own wish and choice and did not report for work after 27.03.2014. On
merits, it was stated that claimant worked as daily worker on daily basis
LIR No. 342-2017 3
in two spells, initially on 01.11.2006, he joined the management No. 2 as
a Helper on daily wages basis and he was duly provided the benefits of
ESIC and Provident Fund. It is stated that he worked till 31.05.2010 and
left his work on 01.06.2010 voluntarily after withdrawing his PF amount
vide final settlement by submitting his PF form number 19 and 10 c. by
mentioning the reason of leaving of job as "Cessation on short service". It
is stated that again on 01.06.2012, the claimant joined the work with
management No. 2 as Helper on daily wages basis and this time also, he
was duly provided the benefits of ESIC and Provident Fund and he
worked till 26.03.2014 and left his work voluntarily after withdrawing his
PF amount. The other contents of claim petition were denied and it was
prayed that claim petition be dismissed with exemplary cost.
6. Separate replications were filed by workman to the written
statements of both managements No. 1 and 2 wherein contents of claim
petition were reiterated and reaffirmed and those of written statement
were denied.
7. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide
order dated 20.07.2018:-
1. Whether there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the parties?OPM
2. Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined U/s 2 (s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947?OPM
3. Whether the claim as raised by the workman is not an Industrial
Dispute as per the requirement of Section 2 (k) of I.D. Act?
4. Whether the present claim, as raised is barred by limitation?OPM
5. Whether the management No. 2 never terminated the service of
claimant and he himself voluntarily left the job by his own?
6. As per terms of reference.
7. Relief.
8. In evidence, workman Sh. Lakhan Singh produced himself in
witness box as WW-1 and after his cross-examination, no other witness
was produced and W.E. was closed
LIR No. 342-2017 4
9. In defence, management produced Sh. Atul Mehra, Asst. Manager
of management no. 1 as MW-1, Sh. Prem Shankar Roy, GPA Holder of
management no. 2 as MW1/2 and Sh. Shiv Kumar was examined as
MW2.
10. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My findings are
as under:
11. Issue No. 1. Whether there exists no relationship of employer
and employee between the parties?OPM and Issue No. 2. Whether
the claimant is not a workman as defined U/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947?OPM and Issue No. 3. Whether the claim as raised by the
workman is not an Industrial Dispute as per the requirement of
Section 2 (k) of I.D. Act? and Issue No. 4. Whether the present
claim, as raised is barred by limitation?OPM and Issue No. 5.
Whether the management No. 2 never terminated the service of
claimant and he himself voluntarily left the job by his own? And
Issue No. 6. As per terms of reference? :- All these issues are taken up
together being inter-connected.
12. It is the case of claimant that management No. 2 has appointed the
workman as Safai Karamchari on 12.08.2009 and he was lastly drawing
the salary @ Rs. 9330/- per month and since then, the workman was
working very honestly and diligently. It is also pleaded that after
appointment, the management No. 2 sent the workman to the
management No. 1 for working on its behalf and since then to till date,
the workman was working with the management No. 1 but all the
wages/salary were provided by the management No. 2 to the workman. It
is pleaded that management No. 2 was not providing the other legal
facilities to the workman as granted under different labour laws and even
the workman was being paid wages less than the minimum rate affixed
by Government and workman was demanding the legal facilities from
management No. 2 but no heed was paid towards his demands and rather,
management No. 2 got annoyed and started to victimize the workman. It
is further pleaded that management No. 2 terminated the workman on
LIR No. 342-2017 5
27.03.2014 from his services with malafide and dishonest intention and
without any notice or charge sheet. It is also pleaded that workman sent
demand notice dated 23.05.2014 to the managements through registered
AD and speed post through Labour Union for his reinstatement but in
spite of the receipt of said demand notice, the workman was not taken
back on duty and management gave no reply to same.
13. On the contrary, it is the case of management No. 1 that no
employer-employee relationship exists or ever existed between the parties
and workman has not come to the court with clean hands. It was pleaded
that management No. 2 is a contractor duly engaged by the management
No. 1 for supply of housekeeping employees on requirement basis and
although, it is the prerogative of the management No. 2 to depute any
specific employee at any specific place as per the requirement of its
customer/client. It was also pleaded that management No.1 has no reason
or occasion to engage the claimant at its establishment due to absence of
employer-employee relationship between the claimant and management
No. 1.
14. It is the case of management No. 2 that claim filed by claimant is
not maintainable as after getting his P.F. account finally settled, the
claimant does not come within the scope of workman as defined under
the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It was also
pleaded that present dispute has been raised after a delay of about 2 ¼
years without filing any application and without assigning any reason in
this regard. It was further pleaded that management No. 2 never
terminated the services of the workman and he himself voluntarily left
the job by his own wish and choice and did not report for work after
27.03.2014. It was further pleaded that claimant worked as daily worker
on daily basis in two spells, initially on 01.11.2006, he joined the
management No. 2 as a Helper on daily wages basis and he was duly
provided the benefits of ESIC and Provident Fund. It is further pleaded
that he worked till 31.05.2010 and left his work on 01.06.2010
voluntarily after withdrawing his PF amount vide final settlement by
LIR No. 342-2017 6
submitting his PF form number 19 and 10 c. by mentioning the reason of
leaving of job as "Cessation on short service".
15. The claimant in support of his case has filed his evidence by way
of affidavit and he relied upon some documents in support of his case.
The copy of demand notice is Ex. WW-1/1, copy of I-card is proved as
Ex. WW-1/4, Ex. WW-1/5 is copy of ESI card.
16. In his cross-examination, WW-1 admitted that he had filed the
documents on record showing his continuous employment with the
management No. 2 from 2002 to 2010 and further admitted that facilities
of PF vide PF no. DL/CPM/36190/00008 and ESIC vide ESIC no.
1111762327 were provided to him by management No. 2. He further
deposed that he was appointed by management No. 2 as a helper. WW-1
further admitted that he was provided facilities of PF and ESIC by the
management No. 2 and he was in continuous employment with the
management No. 2 till 26.03.2014.
17. WW-1 further deposed that he joined the services of management
No. 2 again on 01.06.2012 and worked till 26.03.2014. WW-1 further
admitted that PF was withdrawn by him on the ground "Kaam khatam ho
gaya PF nikal raha hoon" (Cessation of relationship with management
No. 2). WW-1 further admitted that he has not placed on record any
document on record showing that he was appointed by management No.
1 at any point of time and that management No. 1 had not issued any
appointment letter to him.
18. WW-1 further deposed that he was getting salary and other facilities
in time during his employment with the management No. 2 and there was
no dispute between him and management No. 2 during his employment.
WW-1 further admitted that he had not made any complaint to any
concerned authority against management No. 1 and 2 during his
employment.
19. To make the matter worse, the workman further admitted that he
has not placed on record the postal receipt of sending the demand notice
to management No. 1 and 2 and he has not placed on record the proof of
LIR No. 342-2017 7
service of said demand notice upon management No. 1 and 2. WW-1
further admitted that management No. 2 had stated before labour officer
during conciliation proceedings that they had not terminated his service.
20. It is further important to note here that no plausible reason for delay
in filing the present claim has been furnished by workman and rather
WW-1 was put specific question regarding not making complaint against
management No. 2 to any authority, police or court.
21. In his further cross-examination, WW-1 admitted that after leaving
management no. 2, he started his job in UGC Department of Jamia Milia
Islamia University, through his employer M/s EMDEE Digitronics Pvt.
Ltd , having office at Ghola Ghata Raod, Kolkata, where he was provided
EPF facility under EPF by M/s EMDEE and he worked with M/s
EMDEE till 31.03.2019 and thereafter on 01.04.2019, he joined M/s
Sharma Enterprises having its office at 71, Dada Jhakade Mandir Area,
Kair Village, Delhi and also getting EPF there as well and thus, has been
gainfully employed. He further admitted that he has filed a false and
fabricated affidavit with ulterior motives just to extract the money from
the employer i.e. management no. 2. He further deposed that he had not
mentioned this fact in his affidavit intentionally.
22. Gist of the cross-examination of workman conducted on behalf of
managements is that workman has admitted himself to be employee of
management No. 2 only and that salary was being received by him from
management No. 2. WW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that PF
was withdrawn by him on the ground "Kaam khatam ho gaya PF nikal
raha hoon" (Cessation of relationship with management No. 2). As per
his own admission, no document has been placed on record showing that
he was appointed by management No. 1 at any point of time and that
management No. 1 had not issued any appointment letter to him. Even in
his cross-examination he went to the extent to admit that he has
intentionally suppressed the material facts from the court and has averred
wrong facts in the affidavit so as to extract money from the management
no. 2.
LIR No. 342-2017 8
23. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, it has become
ample clear that the management No. 1 has been successful in proving
that there there exists no relationship of employer and employee between
the parties. Even otherwise, the averments have been made against
management No. 2 only in the statement of claim filed by workman
himself and workman has failed to bring on record any document that he
was having any relationship with management No. 1.
24. Hon'ble Delhi Court in case law reported as Suresh Bhati &
Ors. Vs. M/s Kapil Industries & Ors. 2006 - (LB4) GJX - 0556 -
DEL ruled that the onus to prove the relationship is squarely on the
employee or the workman who comes to the Labour Court to claim a
relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
25. Also, Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case law
reported as Dhyan Singh Vs. Raman Lal MANU/MP/0157/2000
ruled / observed that, ".... To prove a contract of employment, there has to
be a direct evidence to show some nexus between the claimant and the
respondent. This can be of any kind such as appointment letter, monthly
payment slip, deduction of PF, payment of any dues which would show that he was in the employment, any correspondence wherein the respondent has admitted that claimant was in his employment. In substance, the Courts are in favour of documentary evidence to record a definite finding on such type of issue. They are the best piece of evidence for coming to a conclusion one way or other......". The above judgments are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
26. It is not the case of the claimant that he was regularized and this argument of the management that Section 25 F will not be applicable in view of the Sub Section bb of Section 2(oo), applies to the present case. The said provision of law is reproduced as below:
(oo)"Retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include -
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or LIR No. 342-2017 9
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;
27. As per section Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act mentioned above, it is clear that the term "retrenchment" does not include termination of the service of the claimant as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the claimant concerned on its expiry.
28. Reliance is also placed on case titled Nuclear Fuel Complex Vs. K.P. Reddy (2002) 2LLN 966 (AP) (DB) of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was held that the contract labour, engaged by a contractor for a particular job, are not workman under the I.D. Act. Such employment comes to an end automatically as soon as the time is over and the job is over.
29. The disengagement of contract labour does not amount to retrenchment and does not attract Section 25(F) of I.D Act.
30. So on all counts, claimant has utterly failed to prove his case against the managements. The claimant has failed to prove that he was a permanent employee of the managements and that his services have been terminated illegally.
31. The reliance is placed by management No. 2 upon judgment titled as Director, Institute of Management Development, U. P. Vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastava cited as 1992 (3) SCR 712 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Since the appointment was on purely contractual and ad-hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed LIR No. 342-2017 10 period and terminable without notice, when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service. A limited relief of directing that the appointee be permitted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till the end of concerned calender year as issued. This court noticed that when the appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period, on the expiry of the period, the right to remain in the post came to end ." This judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also as claimant was appointed in the present case on contractual basis only and he was not permanent employee of the managements. Rather, it has come on record that management neither terminated, retrenched, discharged nor dismissed the claimant from service and contract of management was expired and workman was not supposed to work after expiry of contract with management No. 2 and all the wages of workmen were paid upto date according to pay scale prescribed by the govt.
32. Accordingly, issues No. 1 and 2 are decided against the workman and in favour of managements and it is held that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and management no. 1 and further held that the claimant is not a workman as defined U/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 qua management no. 1. As far as management no. 2 is concerned his claim is barred by 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act.
33. So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, the management No. 2 in its written statement has specifically mentioned that claim raised by claimant is not an industrial dispute as per the requirement of section 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the reason that services of claimant have not been terminated by management No. 2 and in absence of retrenchment/termination of service, there is no violation of provisions of I. D. Act. In corresponding para of replication, nothing has been LIR No. 342-2017 11 mentioned by workman except simple denial. Rather, the workman has failed to bring anything on record in this regard.
34. Thus in these circumstances, issue No. 3 is also decided in favour of managements and against the workman and it is held that the claim as raised by the workman is not an Industrial Dispute as per the requirement of Section 2 (k) of I.D. Act as the claimant is not a workman.
35. The onus to prove issue No. 4 was upon management and under this issue, the management was required to be prove that the present claim, as raised is barred by limitation. As already discussed, no plausible reason for delay in filing the present claim has been furnished by workman and rather, WW-1 was put specific question regarding not making complaint against management No. 2 for about 2 years and 3 months and in reply to this question, he admitted that Surender, Estate Manager of management No. 2 again said manager of management No. 1 had asked him that he would call him for service after 2-3 months and on the same pretext he passed said period. In the cross-examination, WW-1 also admitted that Estate Manager Surender had not given him the said fact in writing and that he had not filed any such document on record showing that he had made application to Estate Manager Surender for consideration of his re-employment. So it is clear that workman has failed to furnished any valid reason for delay in filing claim and rather management has been successful in proving that present dispute has been raised after a delay of about 2 ¼ years that too without filing any application. Accordingly, issue No. 4 is decided in favour of management and against the management.
36. As far as issues No. 5 and 6 are concerned, it has already come on record in the cross-examination of WW-1 that PF was withdrawn by him on the ground "Kaam khatam ho gaya PF nikal raha hoon" (Cessation of relationship with management No. 2). It is worthwhile to mention here that WW-1 himself admitted that after leaving management no. 2, he started his job in UGC Department of Jamia Milia Islamia University, through his employer M/s EMDEE Digitronics Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata, where LIR No. 342-2017 12 he was provided EPF facility under EPF by M/s EMDEE and he worked with M/s EMDEE till 31.03.2019 and thereafter on 01.04.2019, he joined M/s Sharma Enterprises having its office at 71, Dada Jhakade Mandir Area, Kair Village, Delhi and also getting EPF there as well and thus, has been gainfully employed. He further admitted that he has filed a false and fabricated affidavit with ulterior motives just to extract the money from the employer i.e. management no. 2. He further deposed that he had not mentioned this fact in his affidavit intentionally. There are only self- serving statements of claimant in the pleading without any valid and cogent evidence. Nothing contrary to the case of managements has been produced by workman in support of his case. In view of the above discussion, it is held that management No. 2 never terminated the service of claimant and he himself voluntarily left the job by his own and that his services have not been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management. Accordingly, issues No. 5 and 6 are decided in favour of managements and against the workman.
37. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, 2013 LLR 927 titled as U. P. State Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs Presiding Officer and Another wherein Hon'ble High Court in para No. 17 observed that " It is settled law that the person who files a claim is required to prove his case. The Industrial Dispute was raised at the instance of the union and even though, the provisions of the Evidence Act is not applicable in industrial proceedings, nonetheless, the burden of proof is upon the union and its worker to prove their claim before the Labour Court" .
38. MW-1/1 Sh. Atul Mehra has appeared in support of the case of management no. 1 and deposed that management No. 1 has no say in the activity of management no. 2 and that they deal with regular employee as well as data provided by management no. 2 regarding manpower or that they have never paid any salary to workman or that they have never issued any chargesheet to the workman.
LIR No. 342-2017 1339. MW-2 Sh. Prem Shankar Roy who is GPA holder of proprietor of M/s. Tip Top Enterprises had also appeared in witness box but AR for the workman failed to create any dent in his deposition.
40. MW2 Sh. Shiv Kumar, Clerk of management no. 1 has also admitted that Sh. Sunder Singh was looking after the work of management no. 1 and now, Sh. Mahender Singh looking after the same or that supervisor is authorised to tell third party as well as workman where to work. He further admitted that trophy of best workman was given by the club or that management no. 1 do not interfere in the working of management no.
2. Again workman failed to create any dent to his deposition and nothing substantial could be ascertained by the workman from his deposition.
41. MW-3 Sh. Atul Mehra was also produced by management No. 1 in support of their case and in his cross-examination conducted by AR for workman, he deposed that he does not know since when the workman was working with the management No. 1 and voluntary deposed that he was working under the management No. 2. He further deposed that trophy of best workman was given by the club but that was for the permanent employee.
42. From the above discussion, it is clear that the workman has failed to prove his claim. The onus was upon the workman to prove that he was an employee of managements and his services have been illegally terminated by managements but he failed to do so. Merely by approaching the labour department ipso facto will not prove the relationship.
43. The initial onus was upon claimant to prove that he is workman and has worked with managements No. 1 and 2 also but nothing has been placed on record and same has not been discharged. Mere statement of claim is not sufficient to prove the same and even oral evidence is also not sufficient. So workman has not been able to prove his case and thus his claim deserves to be rejected for want of evidence qua managements.
44. The AR for workman has argued that it is settled law that previous employees should be given consideration, if new contractors comes in LIR No. 342-2017 14 between. He has relied upon one circular of Delhi Govt. to that effect. In this regard, it is submitted by AR for management No. 2 that same is advisory in nature and not compulsory or binding. Otherwise also, the law on this aspect is clear and unambiguous. The successor of management No. 2 cannot be forced to take the employees of other previous contractor.
45. It is further important to note here that workman has not raised any issue till the time, he remained in service and it is clear that present claim is after thought as on expiry of contract of management No. 2 with management No. 2, the complaint followed by claim was filed before Labour Department thereby raising dispute of illegal termination and thereafter, the present reference was filed against both the managements.
46. On the other hand, managements have been successful in proving that claimant was employed on contractual basis for limited period and he was never appointed against any permanent post by the managements.
47. In view of above observation and discussion of evidence, it is held that though the employer-employee relationship exists between workman and the management No. 2, however, on the basis of evidence available on record, it is duly established that workman was engaged on contractual basis by management No. 2 for providing services to management No. 1 and by afflux of time, the contract came to end and all the wages of workmen were paid upto date according to pay scale prescribed by the govt. and thus, there is no question of terminating his services that too illegally and /or unjustifiably by the managements. Issue No. 2 is decided against the workman and in favour of managements. So on all three counts the claim of workman stands rejected which are (1) he is not a workman, (2) he has abandoned the job himself and (3) he is suitably gainfully employed.
48. Relief :- In view of the findings of the court on issues, it is held that the workman is not entitled to reliefs as claimed against the management and claim of workman stands rejected and award to that effect is hereby passed. Reference stands answered and disposed off accordingly.
LIR No. 342-2017 1549. A copy of this award be sent to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Pronounced in open court on 11.04.2023.
(AJAY GOEL) PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-01, RACC, D.D.U. MARG, NEW DELHI.
PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS POLC-06, RACC, D.D.U. MARG, NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 342-2017 16