Delhi District Court
Delhi vs (1) The Management Of Best & Crompton ... on 4 April, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.S. HANDA : POLC : V : KARKARDOOMA:
DELHI.
Old ID NO. 111/01
New ID NO. 20/06
BETWEEN
The Management of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., A-2, Okhla Indl. Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi.
AND
The Workmen C/o Azad Hind Karamchari Trade Union, Opp. 250 No.
Okhla Indl. Area, Ph-IV, New Delhi.
DATE OF REFERENCE : 14.12.00
DATE OF CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS : 19.03.07
DATE OF AWARD : 04.04.07
AWARD
The Secretary (Labour) Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi has referred the
Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Court vide Order No.
F.24(3744)/2000-Lab./41479-83 dated 14.12.00 in the following terms of
reference :
'Whether the services of S/Sh. Jhallan Pd. & Manoj Kr. have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if
so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?'
2. Precisely, the case of the workmen Jhallan Prasad and Manoj
Kumar is that they were in the employment of management since 27.01.1995
and 22.05.1995 respectively as Laboratory Attendants and their last drawn
wages were Rs.2824/- per month.
-2-
According to them they were performing their duties with due diligence and
honestly. But for raising demand for legal benefits their services were
terminated by the management w.e.f. 17.01.2000 without any notice. They
averred that they sent a demand notice to the management but the same was
not responded by the management. They also lodged complaint in the
Labour Department but their grievances were not removed and conciliation
proceedings also failed. It is claimed that since the services of workmen were
terminated illegally, they are entitled to be reinstated with continuity in
service and full back wages.
3. The management contested the claim of claimant asserting that no
relationship of an employer and employee ever existed between the parties.
It is stated that the claimants were engaged as Lab Attendants by the
Contractor working under the name and style of M/s. Special Services and
they were on the roll of the said contractor. Thus the management claimed
that the claim of the workman has no merits and was liable to be dismissed.
4. In rejoinder the workmen re-asserted their allegations of claim
and controverted the case of management.
5. Upon the pleadings of parties, my Ld. Predecessor framed
following issue for trial:
(1)As per terms of reference.
6. To prove the case the workman Manoj Kumar has examined
himself as WW-1 and relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to
-3-
Ex.WW1/11 and workman Jhallan Prasad has examined himself as WW-2
and relied upon documents Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/11. On the other hand
management has examined Mr. H.M. Sharma as MW-1 and
relied upon documents Ex.MW1/A to Ex.MW1/H. The management has
also examined Mr. Ramjee Lal as MW-2 and relied upon documents
Ex.MW2/A and Ex.MW2/B.
7. I have heard the ARs for the parties and perused the record. AR
for workman has relied upon The Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries
Ltd. represented by the General Secretary of the Socialist Workers' Union,
Madras-23 Vs. (1) The Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd.,
Madras-55 (2) The Presiding Officer, II, Addl. Labour Court, Madras (3) The
Workmen of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., represented by the
Secretary, Madras-600001 1985 I LLJ, High Court Madras.
8. On my due consideration of material on record; submissions
made by AR for parties and relevant legal provisions and case law; my
findings on issue are as follows:
FINDINGS ON ISSUE :
The first and foremost question for consideration arises: As to
whether the claimant was the workman of the management? Undeniably
from the ESIC form Ex.MW2/A it is evident that the workman had signed as
employee of the contractor. And on this point no cross has been conducted
by AR for the workmen. Moreover the workmen admitted that it was
Ramjilal who was paying them the salaries. But irrespective of that the
unquestioned fact on record is that
/ 4 /
the management had failed to prove that for the service period i.e. 1995 till
2000 their services were hired by the management through
the contractor. Because for the relevant period the contract agreement has
not been filed on record. Therefore it is a misconceived plea that from the
attendance register of Ram ji Lal of M/s. Special Services, mgt. was able to
establish that workman was employed by the said Contractor and that
provision of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 did not
apply. Admittedly M/s. Special Services did not have the licence as requisite
under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
9. In this perspective, the admitted position on the record is that
workman Jhallan was working with the management since 1995 uptill
17.1.2000and Manoj Kumar was working with the management since 22.9.95 uptill 17.1.2000. As a consequence thereof the plea of outsourcing their services through M/s. Special Services is held to be sham. Ordinarily the services of the workmen having been terminated illegally and unjustifiably they are entitled to reinstatement. However in Deena Nath & Ors. Vs. National Fertilisers Ltd. 1992 LLJ 289 SC, Hon'ble Apex Court Law hold merely because the contractor of the principal employer have not got themselves registered in the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 does not mean that the contract labour would be deemed to be the contract employees of the principal employer and in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others (Supra) that "there cannot be any automatic absorption of the contract labour with the principal employer". Moreover, this is a case wherein / 5 / workman Mr. Manoj Kumar has admitted that he did not try to find a job and workman Jhallan Prasad admitted that he is selling newspaper and earning Rs.60-75 a day. He contradicted his own deposition in his cross dated 10.2.04 that he was not residing in Delhi. In this backdrop and as the workmen were self employed and seven years have been passed by; it won't be judicious and prudent to thrust them upon the management.
10. In LPA No. 1647/2005 decided on 10.2.06 M/s. Lords Homeopathic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Lissy Unnikunju & Ors., the Hon'ble DB consisting of Hon. Mr. Justice Markandeya Katju, CJ and Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, J held that " it was open to the Labour Court to award compensation instead of reinstatement on the facts of the case. The Hon'ble DB opined the discretion exercised by the labour court directing the grant of compensation instead of reinstatement on the facts of the case ought not be disturbed. To bring the industrial peace and harmony in the society and considering the importance of industrial growth which are to go hand in hand; I deem it a fit case whereby workmen Jhallan Prasad and Manoj Kumar be awarded the liquidated compensation @ Rs.5000/- per year for services rendered. Each of the workmen had rendered service for a period of six years. Accordingly the workmen Jhallan Prasad and Manoj Kumar each be awarded liquidated compensation for the period six years amounting to Rs.30,000/-. In addition as deemed just and prudent each of the workmen be awarded Rs.10,000/- by way of litigation expenses. Issue is answered accordingly.
/ 6 /
11. ORDER :
In the light of my above discussion the workmen Jhallan Prasad and Manoj Kumar are awarded liquidated compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Reference is also answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for its publication.
File be consigned to record room.
Dated: 04.04.07 ( S.S. HANDA )
PRESIDING OFFICER:
LABOUR COURT-V:
DELHI.