Delhi District Court
The Mgt Examined Sh. vs Jose, Senior Manager Hr, As Mw1. Both on 15 February, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK AGARWAL
Presiding Officer Labour Court XVIII
KARKARDOOMA COURT ; DELHI.
ID No. 589/06
BETWEEN
Workman Sh. .Gauri Shanker
C/o Okhla Industrial Workers Union,
Opp. Kalkaji Bus Depot,
New Delhi.
AND
M/s. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,
E-47/9, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II,
New Delhi.
AWARD
1.The workman Gauri Shanker C/o Okhla Industrial Workers Union, raised a dispute against his employer, the management of M/s. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD., against illegal termination of his service. The said dispute came to be referred to this court by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi vide reference No. F.24 (1317)/99-Lab./21141-45, dated 19/5/1999 in the following terms of reference :-
"Whether the services of Sh. Gauri Shanker, 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 notice being issued to the parties the workman filed his statement of claim stating that he worked with the management as a Tablet Operator w.e.f. 15/7/1993 and that his last drawn salary was Rs. 2106/-
1per month. He worked sincerely and honestly but was not provided his legal entitlements. He therefore joined a trade union which annoyed the management andultimately, his service was terminated by the management on 23/9/1998 without issuing him any notice or charg-sheet. His salary for themonth of Sept. 1998 was also withheld. He sent a demand notice dt. 25/9/1998 which was not replied. Conciliation proceedings initiated by him failed due to non cooperation of the management. Claiming that he has been retrenched in violation of Section 25 F. Industrial Dispute Act, The workman has prayed for reinstatement and full back wages.
3. The management has filed a written statement claiming that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman. It is claimed that the workman was engaged by M/s Unique Services who was the management's contractor. He worked under their direct supervision and under control. It is also stated that as per the information received from M/s Unique Service the workkman has himself abandoned his job with them. The management has therefore denied any liability to reinstate the workman or topay him any compensation.
4. The workman filed a rejoinder reiterating the statements made in her claim. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 3/9/2001.
1. Whether there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2. Whether the State Govt. was competent to refer the matter to the Labour Court?
3. As per terms of reference.
4. Relief.
5. The workman filed his own affidavit in evidence as WW1 while the mgt examined Sh. VS Jose, Senior Manager HR, as MW1. Both 2 witnesses have been cross examined by the AR s appearing on opposite sides.
6. I have heard the AR s of both sides and have gone through the evidence on record and written arguments filed by the workman. My findings on the issues are as under :-
7. Issue No. 1The workman has deposed in his affidavit that he worked with the management for about 5 years from 15/7/93 to 23/9/98. He has also deposed that he was given member ship of the company's provident fund in the year 1996. MW1 has on the other hand, deposed that that the workman was employed with their contractor M/s unique Services. He was therefore, under the supervision and control of the contractor. His salary was being paid by the contractor out of the 15% service charge the contractor was charging the company.
8. Both sides have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The workman relies upon his ESI card which he has proved as Ex.WW1/1, and 1/ 2, a copy of his contribution slip towards Ranbaxy Employees PF Trust and statement issued by the trust (Ex. WW1/3 & 4 respectively). The workman has also filed a copy of the letter attesting his signatures by some officer of the management which has been taken on record as mark 1. The management has relied upon bills of the contractor and their annextures which have been proved as Ex. MW1/B to 1/D. They also filed a copy of the leave application written by the workman himself addressed to M/s Unique Services which, the workman admitted during his cross examination and was therefore mark as EX. WW1/M2 and copy of the payment of wages register maintained by the M/s Unique Services which also admitted by the workman as Ex. WW1/M1.
9. The Ld. AR of the workman has strenuously argued that the documents filed by the workman conclusively prove that he was an 3 employee of the management itself and not of any contractor. He has laid great stress upon the PF documents which as per the Ld. AR, leave no room for doubt in this regard. However, the workman was confronted in his cross examination with the nomination and declaration form for the purpose of PF which he himself executed on 1/1/1996. The workman has admitted his signatures thereupon and the same has been proved as Ex. WW1/3. In colomn 7 of the form the employee is mentioned as a Contract employee.
The certificate by employer appended to the said form has been signed by the Proprietor of M/s Unique Services. I therefore, agree with the ld.AR of the management that right from the date of making his application for the purpose of PF, the workman knew it well that he was an employee of M/s Unique Services and not of the management of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories.
10. The other documents filed by the management including bills of the contractor M/S Unique Services Contractor to which salary statement s of their employees have been annexed, have not been disputed by the workman. The salary statements shows that the total wages paid by the contractor to 9 of its employees including the workman Gauri Shanker and also, ESI contributions made by the contractor on their behalf. Similarly, the payment of wages register maintained by M /s unique services for the month January, 1998 has been placed on record and the workman has admitted his signatures thereon in his cross examination. In order to distinguish the same, the management has filed a copy of its attendance register for the same month i.e. January, 1998 which shows 7 employees who are all different from employees of M/s unique Services as mentioned in their payment of wages register.
11. The documentary evidence overwellmingly shows that he workman had all along been an employee of M/s Unique Services and was also in clear knowledge of this fact. The Ld. ARW has contended that the leave application Ex. WW1/M2 was got forcibly addressed by him to M/s Unique Services. However, the workman has admittedly not made any complaint in this regard to anyone. Moreover, this application was made 4 before the date of termination of the workman and there is nothing on record to show that there was any dispute between the workman and the management at that time. In any event, in view of the bulkof the evidence showing him to be an employee of the contractor, it cannot be believed that he was still an employee of the management but addressed the leave application to the contractor on the asking of the management.
12. Consequently, I hold that the workman is not able to prove his relationship as an employee with the management . Issue no. 1 is therfore decided agst the workman.
13. Issue no. 2 The management had contended in his written statemt that the State Government was not competent to make make the refeence since no industiral dispute has arisen. This issue was however not pressed by the Ld. ARM during the course of the arguments. Even otherwise, there is nothing in evidecne to support the contention of the management that no industiral dispute had arisen. However, since it has been held that the workman was not an employee of the management, it can be said that no industiral dispute had arisen between him and the management of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories. Issue no. 2 is therefore, decided accordingly.
14. Issue No. 3In view of my findings on issue no. 1 the workman was not an employee of the management and, therefore, there could be no occasion for the management to terminate his service whether illegally or otherwise. Issue no. 3 is therefore, decided against the workman.
15. Relief :-
Since the service of the workman has not been terminated by the management , the workman cannot be granted any relief in these proceedings against the management.
5Reference is answered in the above terms. Award is passed accordingly. Copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as per rules. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on 15/02/2007 (ALOK AGARWAL) Presiding Officer Labour Court No. XVIII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
6