Delhi District Court
Sanjay Rana @ Uday Singh vs North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd on 26 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 2622/2016
Sanjay Rana @ Uday Singh Vs. M/s North Delhi Motors Pvt.
Ltd.
CNR No.: DLCT13-001630-2014
Sanjay Rana @ Uday Singh
S/o Sh. Raj Singh Rana
Through Jagriti Labour Union (Regd.)
3854, Sangam Vihar, Wazirabad,
Delhi-110084 ............ Workman
Vs.
M/s. North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd.
G.T. Karnal Road, Alipur,
Delhi-110036 .......... Management
Date of receiving of Reference : 18.09.2014
Date of reserving order : 13.09.2023
Date of passing Award : 26.09.2023
AWAR D
1. Vide Reference No.F.24/ID/141/13/NWD/263/14Lab/1475-
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 1 of 14
79 dated 03.09.2014, the following Reference was received for
adjudication, from Deputy Labour Commissioner, under Section 10 (1)
(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Notification no.
S-110011/2/75/DK (IA) dated 14.04.1975 and Notification no. F-
1/31/61/616/Estt./2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009 in respect of industrial
dispute between the Workman and Management :-
"Whether the services of the workman Sh. Sanjay
Rana @ Uday Singh S/o Sh. Raj Singh Rana have
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the Management if so, to what relief is he entitled
and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Notice of aforesaid Reference was issued to the Workman
and after service of said notice, Statement of Claim was filed by him. The
brief facts, as stated in his Statement of Claim, are as follows:
1. That the Workman was working with the
Management as Fitter since last 16 years and his
last drawn wages were Rs.12,050/- per month.
2. That the Management had not provided him
the legal facilities viz. bonus, yearly leaves, casual
leaves, medical leaves etc. That the workman was
made to run from one place to another and no
transport allowance was given to the workman.
That no helper was provided to the workman and
when workman asked for the same, the
management used to abuse the workman.
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 2 of 14
3. That a complaint was made on 30.01.2014 to
PS Alipur, Delhi regarding the
misbehaviour/criminal use of force by the
management. A complaint was also made to Labour
Office, Nimri Colony, Delhi.
4. That when workman raised demand for
abovesaid facilities, the Management got annoyed
at him and illegally terminated his services w.e.f.
05.02.2014 without giving him any Show-cause
Notice, chargesheet and without conducting
domestic enquiry.
5. That Demand Notice dated 05.02.2014 was
sent by workman to the Management through
courier and speed post but despite service of notice,
neither Management sent any reply to said notice
nor paid him earned wages nor reinstated him.
6. That a complaint was made to Assistant
Labour Commissioner through the Union but
management refused reinstate the workman.
7. That he is completely unemployed since the
day of his illegal termination and dependent upon
his family and could not secure any employment
despite efforts made by him.
3. Thereafter, notice of Statement of Claim was issued to
Management and Management filed its Written Statement on 21.05.2015.
In the Written Statement, the management raised following defences: -
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 3 of 14
1. That the claim of the workman was not
maintainable as no firm or company in the name
of "North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd." exists at G.T.
Karnal Road, Delhi-36 and only partnership firm
in the name of "North Delhi Motors" exists at the
above address, where Sh. Manjeet Singh Kohli is
one of the partner.
2. That the workman was appointed as
"Helper" on 01.09.1998 with North Delhi Motors
and he left the job on his own on 30.09.2002.
3. The workman rejoined the management on
21.11.2015 as "Asst. Mistri" and he last worked
with the management up to 04.02.2014 and his last
drawn salary was 9,450/- PM. That he left the job
on his own and taken all his dues i.e. Rs.44,815/-
from the management including salary for the
period 01.01.2014 to 04.02.2014 on 04.02.2014.
4. That the workman committed forgery of
documents and wrongful declaration of his name.
5. That the management received a demand
notice dated 05.02.2014 from the workman and the
management duly replied the said notice vide reply
dated 19.02.2014 through registered post.
6. That the management had not received any
notice for appearance from the Labour Office
Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52 and
management was not aware of the proceedings
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 4 of 14
before the Labour Office.
4. On 31.10.2015, following issue were framed in the present
case by my Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether the workman left the job with his own
and taken all his dues from the management?
OPM
2. Whether the terms of reference is totally illegal
ultravires and liable to be rejected as there was no
firm in existence in the name of North Delhi
Motors Pvt. Ltd. at G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi-36?
OPM
3. As per terms of reference? OPW
4. Relief.
5. In order to prove the respective cases, both the parties have
led their evidence. The Workman stepped into witness-box as WW-1. He
exhibited his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following
documents:
Ex.WW1/1 Claim filed before the Conciliation Officer
Ex.WW1/2 Complaint dated 31.01.2014 filed before the ALC
Ex.WW1/3 Post receipt and courier receipt of demand notice
sent to the management
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 5 of 14
Ex.WW1/4 Demand notice dated 31.01.2013 sent to the
management
Ex.WW1/5 Complaint dated 05.02.2014 filed before the ALC
Ex.WW1/6 Demand notice dated 31.01.2013
Ex.WW1/7 Complaint dated 30.01.2014 made to SHO PS Alipur
Ex.WW1/8 Courier receipt of complaint dated 30.01.2014 to
SHO PS Alipur
Ex.WW1/9 Work order dated 14.03.2002
Ex.WW1/10 Work order dated 17.03.2002
Ex.WW1/11 Experience certificate issued by the management
Ex.WW1/12 Letter dated 05.11.2006 issued by the management to
the workman to attend the training
Ex.WW1/13 Service training course dated 21.05.2008
6. The workman was duly cross-examined by the AR of the
Management. He admitted that his ESIC card mentioned the date of
appointment as 21.11.2005. He denied the suggestion that he resigned
from the service since on 04.02.2014 as per Ex.WW1/M1 or that he
received the full and final settlement amount of Rs.44,815/- as per
Ex.WW1/M2 or that the payment voucher for the same was
Ex.MM1/M3. He volunteered that management had taken his signatures
on blank papers at the time of appointment. He claimed ignorance
whether the management was private limited or a partnership firm. He
claimed that the same was owned by Sh. Manjeet Singh Kohli. He denied
that he was working as Assistant Mistri. His additional statement was
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 6 of 14
recorded by the court on 06.10.2020 vis-a-vis withdrawal of amount from
PF in the year 2005 and he was confronted with Ex.MW1/5 by the court.
7. The management produced one Sh. Ashok Devrani as MW-
1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.MW1/A. He
exhibited the following documents:
Ex.MW1/1 Copy of appointment letter of workman dated
(OSR) 21.11.2005
Ex.MW1/2 Copy of ESI card of workman
Ex.MW1/3 Copy of ESI declaration
Ex.MW1/4 Copy of Nomination and declaration form
Ex.MW1/5 Copy of EPF scheme Form-11 dated 21.11.2015
8. He was duly cross examined. He deposed and maintained
that North Delhi Motors is a partnership firm with Manjeet Singh Kohli
and Sanjeet Kaur Kohli as partners and that there was no management by
the name of North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. He maintained that the demand
notice and letter by the workman was containing wrong name and
address and more specifically on Ex.WW1/4. The witness denied any
knowledge regarding sending the workman on training in terms of letter
Ex.WW1/12. However, witness admitted that letter Ex.WW1/13 was
given to the workman by the management on completion of training. The
witness maintained that the amount of Rs.44,815/- was given in cash.
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 7 of 14
The witness admitted that the management had filed copy of muster roll
for only one month.
9. Management also summoned the witness from EPFO,
namely, Roshan Kumar Singh to prove the provident fund account no.
DL/CPM16857/63 belonging to the workman and that the same was
being credited with by money by employer having employer code
DLCPM16857. The witness deposed that Sanjay Singh had left the job in
2004 and again joined in the firm on 21.11.2005 and exited on
28.02.2014 on account of cessation (short service). He exhibited the
following documents:
Ex.C1 Attested copy of the order dated 05.11.2014
Ex.C2 Attested copy of Form-09
Ex.C3 Photocopy of Quarry Menu regarding payment of
(colly) Rs.23,082/- and Rs.8,481/- and letter dated 01.12.2020
issued by Assistant PF Commissioner, Accounts-II
Ex.C4 Subscriber ledger card
10. This witness was also duly cross examined. The witness
maintained that workman had joined the management on 01.09.1998 and
left the job on 30.09.2002. He had withdrawn the PF amount on
15.12.2004 which was deposited in his bank account vide two cheques
and the PF account was closed i.e. account no. DLCPM16857/63.
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 8 of 14
Thereafter, on 21.11.2005, his account no. DLCPM16857/86 was opened
and PF was deposited from 21.11.2005 to 28.02.2014 in the said account.
11. One of the main issue raised by the management is that the
case has been instituted and continued in the name of wrong
management. That there is no entity by the name of North Delhi Motors
Pvt. Ltd. at the given address and the workman was working with a
partnership firm. This objection has been raised since day 1 by the
management and it may be pertinent to refer to Ex.MW1/1 i.e.
appointment letter which bears the stamp of North Delhi Motors and
signed by partner. The ESIC documents Ex.MW1/2 and Ex.MW1/3 all
bears the seal of M/s North Delhi Motors. The EPF document Ex.MW1/5
and settlement documents etc. also bears the seal of North Delhi Motors.
12. The workman, on the other hand, has primarily relied on a
letter issued by Tata Motors Private Ltd. to North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd.
dated 11.11.2006 Mark A to contend that Tata Motors Private Ltd. had
issued a letter to North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. regarding training of the
workman. However, in my view, the said letter has not been duly proved
by the workman, as a photocopy has been filed and no witness was
examined from Tata Motors Private Ltd. to prove the said document.
Further, I may note that the workman himself filed several documents
which include job card of North Delhi Motors Ex.WW1/9, Ex.WW1/10
LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 9 of 14
and alleged certificate Ex.WW1/11 and another letter by Tata Motors
Private Ltd. Ex.WW1/13 which contain the name North Delhi Motors
and not North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the workman has
miserably failed to prove that the name of the management was North
Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and not North Delhi Motors, a partnership firm as
alleged by the respondent.
13. I may be pertinent to note that workman was well aware of the stand of the management that he was employed by a partnership firm North Delhi Motors. Yet the workman chose not to seek any corrigendum of the reference sent by the Joint Labour Commissioner, District North West to this court. In law, a partnership firm and a private limited company are distinct legal persons and it was for the workman to have sued the correct entity. The workman, despite being put to notice and despite his down documents showing otherwise, vehemently continued with his claim that he was an employee of North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and not North Delhi Motors, a partnership firm.
14. What could have been the reason that the workman, despite being informed, refused to acknowledge his employment with the North Delhi Motors?
15. It seems that the workman was well aware of the existence LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 10 of 14 of Ex.MW1/6, Ex.MW1/7 and Ex.MW1/8 which is stamped by North Delhi Motors, accepting his resignation and full and final payment receipt and voucher. In order to ignore or by pass all the aforesaid documents, the workman chose to contend that he was an employee of North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd.
16. In my view, the management was able to show that the workman had worked from 01.09.1998 to 13.09.2002 and then again from 21.11.2005 to 28.02.2014 as is evident from Ex.C1, Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. The certificate of confirmation Ex.WW1/11 and Ex.WW1/12 are unsigned documents and have not been duly proved by the workman.
17. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to note that the present case arises out of a reference made under Section 10 (1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Only parties to the reference are bound by the same. The present case has two complications:
firstly, the workman has not been able to prove even the existence of a company by the name North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. The workman never produced any records of ROC to show that any such company actually existed at the given address where the service was effected;
secondly, the North Delhi Motors, a partnership firm entered appearance on receipt of summons and contended from day 1 that there LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 11 of 14 was no such company and only partnership firm existed at the given address and also acknowledged that the claimant had worked under the said partnership firm as an employee.
18. Therefore, either the conclusion is that there was no company by the name of North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and only North Delhi Motors, a partnership firm and therefore, the reference was bad or nonest being against the wrong party. The other possibility is that North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. existed but it was neither served with summons nor proceeded with ex-parte. The North Delhi Motors, a partnership firm could not had represented North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. However, this situation arises because the workman has refused to acknowledge the defence taken by the management as correct. However, on over all appreciation of evidence, I have come to a conclusion that the workman has failed to prove the existence of North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and it has been established that the workman was employed with North Delhi Motors, a partnership firm, against whom there is no reference. Although, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Madan Pal Singh Vs. State of UP, 2000 1 SCC 683, where the reference contained the wrong name of the workman, it can always be corrected by the Tribunal. I have also noted that in the said case, neither the management has raised any objection regarding name being incorrect, nor was it a case that the workman did not take any action on realizing the mistake, inasmuch as, LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 12 of 14 the workman had sought an adjournment from a Labour Court to get the reference amended (See para 7 and 13 of the judgment in Madan Pal Singh Supra).
19. In the present case, the workman was put to notice from day 1 and he took a stand on merits that he was employed by North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and not North Delhi Motors, a partnership firm. In these circumstances, having concluded that the workman has failed to prove the existence of North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and North Delhi Motors has proved that workman was employed with it, there is no reference of any industrial dispute between the workman and North Delhi Motors. The reference being nonest has to be decided against the workman.
20. There is another way of looking at the matter. The demand notice in the present case which is Ex.WW1/4 dated 05.02.2014 and relied upon by in the affidavit is addressed to M/s North Delhi Motors Pvt. Ltd. The workman has not mentioned about any other demand notice in the claim petition, although, he exhibited several letters of North Delhi Motors in his evidence. Therefore, the present case is required to be dismissed in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Reference is answered in above terms.
21. A copy of this award be sent to the Deputy Labour LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 13 of 14 Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of District/Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Harjyot Digitally signed by Harjyot Singh Singh Bhalla Date: 2023.09.26 Bhalla 16:27:16 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Harjyot Singh Bhalla) th on 26 September, 2023 Presiding Officer Labour Court - 07 Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi LIR No. 2622/2016 Page 14 of 14