Delhi District Court
Roopa Sachdeva vs M/S Apra Auto India Pvt Ltd on 13 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LIR No. 724/18
CNR No. DLCT13-001098-2018
In the matter of:
Ms. Roopa Sachdeva
D/o Sh. Ramchander Choudhary
R/o H. No. E-52/3, Mohan Baba Nagar,
Badarpur, New Delhi - 110044
Mobile No. 9971375812
Through : Universal Proutist Labour Federation (Regd.No.1027)
Near T-34, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi - 110020.
.....Claimant/Workwoman
Details of one immediate family member of the claimant/
workwoman: Not provided
Details of the Authorized Representative of the claimant/
workwoman:
Name : Sh. Ranjeet Singh
Mobile no. 9212007243
VERSUS
1. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd.
F-85, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi - 110020.
2. M/s Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd.
F-85, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi - 110020.
Also at :- K-804/2, Mahipalpur,
New Delhi - 110037.
.....Managements
LIR No.724/18
Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. POOJA Page No. 1 of 12
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.09.13
16:49:59 +0530
Details of Authorized Representative of management no.1:
Name : Mr. Vinay Shukla
Mobile no. 9810624262
E mail ID of management no.1: Not provided
Details of Authorized Representative of management no.2:
Name : Mr. Sahil
Mobile no. 9953080920
E mail ID of management no.2: [email protected]
Date of Receipt of Reference : 17.01.2017
Date of final arguments : 13.09.2024
Date of Award : 13.09.2024
AWARD
1. A consolidated reference was received from the Deputy
Labour Commissioner (South District), Labour
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi vide its order
No. F-24(660)/Lab./SD/2016/27111 dated 15.12.2016,
under Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 regarding an industrial dispute between
workmen Sh. Pankaj Kumar Sharma & 41 others including
the workwoman herein namely Ms. Roopa Sachdeva D/o
Sh. Ramchander Choudhary (at Sl. No. 32) (hereinafter
referred to as 'claimant/workwoman') and the
managements of M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as 'management no.1') and M/s Prem Motors
Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'management no.2')
with the following terms of reference:
"Whether the services of workmen S/Sh. Pankaj
Kumar Sharma & Others as shown in Annexure "A"
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably
LIR No.724/18
Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. POOJA Page No. 2 of 12
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.09.13
16:50:05 +0530
by the management; and if so, to what reliefs are
they entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?"
2. Vide order dated 24.03.2018 passed by the Ld.
Predecessor, the present case was directed to be registered
separately and the copy of the reference order /
proceedings were directed to be placed in this file while
the original reference as received was filed in I.D. No.
212/17.
Facts as per statement of claim
3. In brief, as per the statement of claim, it has been asserted that the claimant/workwoman was employed with the management w.e.f. 14.07.2014 as Customer Care Executive with her last drawn salary being Rs. 9,000/- per month without any complaints or charges against her.
4. It has been further asserted that the management was not providing any legal entitlements and benefits to the claimant/workwoman such as HRA, TA, Bonus, night shift allowances, annual increments etc. and when she demanded the same, the management merely assured the workwoman.
5. It has also been asserted that at the time of joining of the services, the management had obtained the signatures / thumb impressions of claimant/workwoman on blank papers and vouchers on the pretext of use in PF and ESIC and again in April end, the management took her LIR No.724/18 Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. POOJA Page No. 3 of 12 AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:50:12 +0530 signatures and thumb impressions on blank papers and vouchers and threatened to terminate her services, when she objected to the same.
6. It has been further asserted that in May end, the management informed the claimant/workwoman that she was working for management no.2 assuring her that her services were transferred with continuity of service and there was no change in her service condition.
7. It has been further asserted that a General demand case was filed by the claimant/workwoman regarding legal benefits but the management became annoyed and in retaliation, terminated her services on 20.03.2016 without any notice, notice pay, show-cause notice, enquiry or retrenchment compensation, in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in violation of principle of last come first go as many workmen junior to the claimant/workwoman were still in service.
8. It has been further asserted that a demand notice dated 15.04.2016 was served by the claimant/workwoman upon the management through her union seeking reinstatement, continuity of service, full back-wages and all other consequential benefits but the management did not respond to the same.
9. It has also been asserted that the management did not reinstate the claimant/workwoman despite her repeated LIR No.724/18 Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. POOJA Page No. 4 of 12 AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:50:23 +0530 requests and that she is still unemployed being unable to get any alternative employment despite best efforts. Hence, the present claim seeking orders against management no.1 and management no.2 seeking reinstatement in services, continuity of services, full back wages and all other consequential benefits.
Facts as per the written statement of management no.1
10.In their written statement, the management no. 1 raised various preliminary submissions / objections including as to there being unforeseen circumstances and reasons beyond the control of management no.1 that the dealership and service stations of management no.1 were cancelled by Maruti Suzuki India Limited (i.e. MSIL), due to which the management no.1 had no option except to close its business and properties at huge loss and distress.
11.It has been further asserted that the management no.1 had not retrenched any worker but due to closure of the business, it could not continue to service of the claimant/workwoman regarding which prior intimation was given to her and she had agreed by giving her resignation dated 15.02.2015 and settling the accounts with management no.1 and joining duties with management no.2.
12.It has been further asserted that sincere efforts were made by the management no.1 to ensure that no workman should suffer after closure of its unit and they made efforts with the management no.2 which agreed to employ the LIR No.724/18 Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Digitally Page No. 5 of 12 signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2024.09.13 16:50:31 +0530 applicant/workwoman and other workers at their dealership at similar salary at which they were working for management no.1 and an agreement of the similar terms and conditions of the workmen was also agreed upon between the workmen and the new management and claimant / workwoman had joined the management no.2.
13.It has further been asserted that the claim was liable to be dismissed inter-alia as the claimant/workwoman is not a workman under Industrial Disputes Act; the claim was barred by the limitation and the claimant/workwoman had not come to the court with clean hands.
14.On merits, it has been reiterated that the management no.1 has closed its business on 31.05.2015 whereafter, the claimant/workwoman has left the management no.1 on 15.02.2015. All the other averments made in the statement of claim have been denied.
Facts as per Written Statement of management no. 2.
15.In their written statement, the management no. 2 has asserted that on 16.04.2015, an Agreement for Sale And Purchase of Assets of the Management no.1 was executed between the management no.1 and management no.2, wherein it was explicitly stated that the management no.2 shall only purchase the assets of management no.1 and any liability whatsoever of the management no.1 cannot be fastened upon the management no.2 and that the management no.1 shall terminate the services of the LIR No.724/18 Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. POOJA Page No. 6 of 12 AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:50:37 +0530 workmen and shall also duly compensate the said workmen as per statutory laws, whereafter, the management no.2 will absorb them by way of issuing fresh employment of service, which was duly complied by the management no. 2 as per terms of the said agreement by issuing a fresh letter of intent. It has been further asserted that in view of the agreement, the termination of services of the claimant/workwoman was to be governed as per Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and any liability to pay the claimant/workwoman was on management no.1 and not on management no.2.
16.It has been further asserted that after working with management no.2 for almost 9 months, most of the workmen stopped reporting for duty without any cause regarding which management no.2 sent absence notices calling them to resume on services but the claimant/ workwoman did not report nor informed the management no.2 regarding reasons for her absence.
17.On merits, it has been asserted that the claimant/ workwoman joined the management no.2 only on 01.06.2015 by signing the fresh letter of entitlement with management no.2. All remaining assertions made in the statement of claim have been denied on merits.
18.No rejoinder was filed by the claimant/workwoman and vide order dated 04.04.2020, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor :
LIR No.724/18POOJA Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. AGGARWAL Page No. 7 of 12 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:50:42 +0530
1. Whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management ? OPW
2. Whether the management no.1 has not retrenched the workers but due to closure of business claimant agreed to give his resignation after settling the accounts with management no.1? OPM No.1.
3. Whether the present claim filed by the claimant is not maintainable against the management no.2 ? OPM No.2
4. Whether as per the agreement for sale and purchase of assets dated 16.04.2015, only the management no.1 had the responsibility to duly compensate the claimant against the termination of services as per provision of Section 25FF of Industrial Disputes Act,? OPM No.2
5. Whether the present claim is bad of misjoinder of the necessary parties? OPM No.2
6. Whether the claimant as per the agreement between management no.1 and management no.2 was hired by management no.2 and claimant after nine months has stopped reporting to management no.2 without any cause ? OPM No.2.
7. Relief.
19.Despite the matter being listed for workwoman evidence since 2020, no evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the claimant/workwoman nor she examined any other witness to prove her case despite numerous opportunities having been given to her whereafter her evidence was closed vide order dated 31.05.2024.
20.The managements also did not lead any evidence and their right to lead evidence was closed on 09.09.2024.
LIR No.724/18Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page No. 8 of 12 POOJA AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:50:48 +0530 Final Arguments
21.Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the claimant/workwoman as well as on behalf of management no.2, but none appeared on behalf of management no.1 to advance the same.
22.The final arguments as advanced have been carefully considered along with the material on record and after careful consideration of the same, the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1 Whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management ? OPW
23.The onus to prove this issue was upon the claimant/ workwoman. For reasons best known to her, the claimant/workwoman did not lead any evidence on oath as to her services having been terminated by the managements nor the factum of termination of service of the claimant/ workwoman has been admitted by the management no.1 and 2, in the absence of which the very factum of the termination of the service of the claimant/ workwoman remains unproved and hence, the question of any such termination being illegal or unjustifiable does not arise. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided against the claimant/workwoman and in favour of the managements.
Issue no.2 Whether the management no.1 has not retrenched the workers but due to closure of business claimant agreed to give his resignation after settling the accounts with management no.1? OPM No.1.
LIR No.724/18Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. POOJA Page No. 9 of 12 AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:50:53 +0530
24.The onus to prove this issue was upon the management no.1. It is duly noted that the management no.1 has not led any evidence to prove that it was due to closure of business that the claimant/workwoman had agreed to give her resignation after settling the accounts with management no.1 as for reasons best known to them, the management no.1 did not produce any witness to steps into the witness box. This issue is accordingly decided against the management no.1 and in favour of the claimant/workwoman.
Issue no.3 Whether the present claim filed by the claimant is not maintainable against the management no.2 ? OPM No.2 and Issue no.5 Whether the present claim is bad of misjoinder of the necessary parties? OPM No.2
25.Both these issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience. The onus to prove these issues was upon the management no.2. In respect of these issues, it is noted that the management no.2 has also not lead any evidence to demonstrate as to how the present claim is not maintainable qua the management no.2 nor the management no.2 has been able to demonstrate as to how the present claim is bad of misjoinder of the necessary parties. In the absence of the same, the management no.2 has failed to discharge the respective onus. These issues are accordingly decided against the management no.2 and in favour of the claimant/workwoman.
Issue no.4 Whether as per the agreement for sale and purchase of assets dated 16.04.2015, only the LIR No.724/18 Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page No. 10 of 12 POOJA AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:50:59 +0530 management no.1 had the responsibility to duly compensate the claimant against the termination of services as per provision of Section 25FF of Industrial Disputes Act,? OPM No.2 and Issue no.6 Whether the claimant as per the agreement between management no.1 and management no.2 was hired by management no.2 and claimant after nine months has stopped reporting to management no.2 without any cause ? OPM No.2.
26.Both these issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience. The onus to prove these issues was upon the management no.2. In respect of these issues, it is duly noted that the management no.2 did not examine any witness, there is no evidence on record to prove that as per the agreement for sale and purchase of assets dated 16.04.2015, only the management no.1 had the responsibility to duly compensate the claimant/ workwoman against the termination of services as per provision of Section 25FF of Industrial Disputes Act or that as per the agreement between management no.1 and management no.2, the claimant was hired by management no.2 or that the claimant/workwoman had stopped reporting to management no.2 after nine months without any cause. These issues are accordingly decided against the management no.2 and in favour of the claimant/workwoman.
Issue no. (7) : Relief
27.In view of the above discussion and findings on issue no. 1 to 6, it is held that the claimant/workwoman has failed to prove that her services were terminated by the LIR No.724/18 Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. POOJA Page No. 11 of 12 AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2024.09.13 16:51:04 +0530 managements or that the same was illegal and/or unjustified and hence she is not entitled to get any relief. Reference qua Ms. Roopa Sachdeva D/o Sh. Ramchander Choudhary is answered accordingly.
28.Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC and another copy be sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
29.File be consigned to record room after necessary Digitally compliance. signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Announced in the Open Court AGGARWAL Date:
2024.09.13 today i.e. 13th September 2024 16:51:11 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Presiding Officer Labour Court-01 Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi(sy) LIR No.724/18 Roopa Sachdeva vs. M/s Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page No. 12 of 12