Delhi District Court
Sh. Samal vs M/S Pallavi Polymers Pvt. Ltd on 9 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
D.I.D. No. : 338/14
Date of Institution of the case : 21.01.2011
Date on which reserved for Award : 06.12.2014
Date on which Award is passed : 09.12.2014
Unique ID no. 02402C0058422011
Sh. Samal, S/o Sh. Sanatan Sainapati,
R/o B206, Jawala Puri, No. 4,
Nangloi, Delhi110087. ...............Workman
Versus
M/s Pallavi Polymers Pvt. Ltd.,
Gali No. 8, Plot No. 6,
Mundka Industrial Area, Mundka,
Delhi110041.
Sh. Kapil Jaisinghani,
Director of M/s Pallavi Polymers Pvt. Ltd.,
C165, Second Floor,
Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi110017 ...............Management
A W A R D
The workman Sh. Samal, raised an industrial dispute
regarding the termination of his services by the management of M/s
Pallavi Polymers Pvt. Ltd.. Direct statement of claim was filed by the
workman in the court. In the statement of claim, it is stated by the
workman that he had been working as a Helper under the said
respondent/management i.e. M/s Pallavi Polymers Pvt. Ltd. since the
year 2004 on the last drawn salary of Rs. 5,200/ per month; that the D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 1 out of 12 petitioner/workman worked in the said company i.e. respondent/management very honestly and diligently, and petitioner/workman did not give any opportunity to raise any objection/complaint or any finger towards his work; that during the tenure of petitioner/workman's service in said company, he was never charge sheeted and respondent/management had failed to spell out any objection in relation to the work of petitioner/workman; that the petitioner/workman worked with the aforesaid company i.e. the respondent/management till 12.11.2010 and on 13.11.2010, when the petitioner/workman went to join his duty, the respondent/management misbehaved with the petitioner/workman and he was not allowed to perform his duty telling that his services had been terminated; that his services were terminated illegally; that even petitioner/workman had not been paid his salary of the month of October & November, 2011 and any amount of overtime, bonus, dues, leave cash, gratuity etc.; that the workman was not allowed to join his duties in spite of his repeated requests in this respect; that thereafter, petitioner/workman had several times asked to the respondent/management to allow the petitioner/workman to join the duty but petitioner/workman had not been allowed to join the same; that even on petitioner/workman's various personal visits, respondent/management did not give any sound response and no sound and cogent reason had also been given with regard to the termination of service of petitioner/workman; that petitioner/workman had worked with the respondent/management since last about six years and during the tenure of his service petitioner/workman was never charge sheeted and the D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 2 out of 12 respondent/management had failed to spell out any reason much less for termination of the services of petitioner/workman; that since petitioner/workman worked with respondent/management since last six years, he had raised the question of applicability of provident fund, attendance sheet, leave book, salary slip, minimum wages, ESI etc. ; that thereafter, respondent/management started harassment and misbehaved with the petitioner/workman; that the services of the petitioner/workman had been terminated due to legal and valid demand for the applicability of Provident Fund, attendance sheet, leave book, salary slip, minimum wages, ESI etc.; that initially petitioner/workman had worked in the respondent/management at the address F213D, Ground Floor, Maharaja Corporate Building, Old M.B Road, Lado Sarai, New Delhi110030; that thereafter, respondent/management usually shifted its establishment and petitioner/workman worked at B285, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase I, Delhi110083, thereafter, 25, Phase II, Ground Floor, Front, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi110042; that since more than 40 workers were working in the employment of the respondent/management, hence, petitioner/workman raised the demand of employee's contribution fund towards the provident fund; that upon the valid and legal demand respondent/management got annoyed and started harassment of the petitioner/workman; that finding no way petitioner/workman along with other workers went on strike but respondent/management did not fulfill any demand and compelled the petitioner/workman to compromise the matter under the term and condition of management; that finding no way and under pressure D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 3 out of 12 petitioner/workman agreed to term mentioned in the settlement dated 12.09.2007 arrived between the petitioner/workman and respondent/management; that thereafter, respondent/management did not fulfill the said agreement and continuing the harassment of the petitioner/workman and finding out the way to dismiss the services of the petitioner/workman; that when respondent stopped the deduction of PF, hence, petitioner served a letter upon the Provident Fund Commissioner dated 15.11.2010 to take appropriate action against the respondent/management; that on 12.11.2010, when the petitioner/workman went to his duty, he found that respondent/management shifting the goods of factory, hence, he asked about said shifting then respondent/management told that they are shifting the factory and now all workmen would do their work at the address at Gali No. 8, Plot No. 6, Mundka Industrial Area, Mundka, Delhi110041; that since respondent/management had shifted its address many times, hence petitioner/workman went to said address on 13.11.2010, then Sh. Kapil Jaisinghania, Director of the respondent/management directed to the guard that petitioner/workman should not come inside the factory and thrown him out from the factory; that after the alleged illegal termination of the petitioner/workman, he served a demand notice dated 16.11.2011 upon the respondent/management through registered post regarding illegally and arbitrary termination from services and allow him to join his duty and applicability of the provident fund, but respondent/management had failed to comply the same; that respondent had refused to accept the said legal demand; that D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 4 out of 12 thereafter, petitioner/workman again sent the said notice on 01.12.2010 through UPC; that the services of the petitioner/workman had been terminated illegally, arbitrary, unjustifiably without rhyme by the respondent/management and due to said illegal termination, petitioner/workman was unemployed; that the petitioner/workman had not been paid his salary of the month of October & November, 2010 and any amount of overtime, bonus, dues, leave cash, gratuity etc.,; that the respondent/management had violated the mandatory provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as PF Act and in accordance with the same, respondent/management was mandatorily required to give a month's notice or a month's salary in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation but the respondent/management had violated the provisions of law with the sense of impunity; that the respondent/management had neither issued any charge sheet, nor held any enquiry against the petitioner/workman, hence, summarily discharge from its services tantamount to termination which was illegal, unjustified without rhyme; that in the absence of any letter of termination, petitioner/workman was deemed to have been in employment of the respondent/management and entitled to receive full salary along with other allowance and benefits; that the refusal and/or not to allowing to join the duty by the respondent/management and summarily termination of services without rhyme and without following the requisite provisions of Industrial Disputes Act was absolutely illegal and unjustified; that the action of the respondent/management was malafide and came within the ambit of unfair Labour Practice and D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 5 out of 12 respondent/management had not followed the principle of "last come first go" as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act and thus, termination from the services tantamount to illegal; that the respondent/management had not followed the principles of natural justice and had terminated petitioner/workman's services arbitrarily, unjustifiably, illegally in exercise of powers colourably; that the petitioner/workman was unemployed and had not been able to find any job; that the respondent/management while terminating the services of workman did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act; that the petitioner/workman was entitled to the reinstatement of services with continuity of services with full back wages. Hence, the workman has prayed for reinstatement in service along with continuity of service and full back wages with all consequential benefits.
Notice of filing of the statement of claim was sent to the management, which had appeared and contested the statement of claim of the workman by filing its written statement. In the written statement filed by the management, it has taken the preliminary objections that the claim of the workman was liable to be dismissed as the workman had not approached to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and had suppressed the material, true and correct facts which dis-entitled the workman from the relief claimed in the claim petition; that the claim of the workman/petitioner was liable to be dismissed as there was no dispute as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that the claim of the workman/petitioner was liable to be dismissed as the workman had taken a sum of Rs. 28,500/-
D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 6 out of 12 on 04.05.2010 as full and final settlement amount and had resigned from the job after receiving the same; that the intention of Mr. Samal/workman and other colleagues namely, Sanatan, Nirmal, Sapan, and Naba Kumar got malafide and they started demanding more money from the management even after settling their accounts in full and final and receiving the entire settlement amount on May, 2010 from the management; that when the management failed to fulfill their illegal demand they initiated legal proceedings merely with an intention to extract some unwanted money from the management; that the claim of the workman/petitioner was liable to be dismissed as the workman had concealed the actual facts from the Hon'ble Court; that the management started running their business in premises No. B-285, Phase I, Mangol Puri, Industrial Area in June, 2007, however, unfortunately since 2009 onwards the company was going in loss and workers started resigning and taking job elsewhere on mid 2009 onwards; that the management shifted to a small unit i.e. T-4/2 in January, 2010 in Mangolpuri Industrial Area but the management was regularly suffering from financial losses; that the management published an advertisement in the leading newspaper in March, 2010 to dispose of the entire machineries to start winding up process and the machineries lying in the office of management were sold in April, 2010; that seeing the financial crises in management most of the workmen had resigned after taking full and final settlement in the month of April, 2010; that the management shifted to Badli Industrial Area to store the residual machinery and balance stock in hand and finally in October, 2010 the said premises was D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 7 out of 12 vacated, all residual machinery was disposed of and stocks left was sold as scrap; that by that time most of the workmen had settled their accounts with the management and had got job somewhere else; that the workman namely Samal had taken a sum of Rs. 28,500/- from the management on May, 2010 towards full and final settlement of his service dues but it seemed thereafter, the intention of the workman and other four colleagues got malafide and they started harassing the management with an intention to extract some unwanted money and when they could not succeed, they filed the present claim petition on the false flimsy grounds; that Sales Tax Registration, ESI and PF registration were also surrendered in due course of time; that Form 10 was filed with PF intimating them about the resignation of workers. On merits, it was stated that the contents of the paragraph of claim petition pertaining to the workman working with the management was a matter of record; that the last drawn salary was Rs. 5,272/- per month; that it was denied that the workman/petitioner never gave any opportunity of complaint to the management; that it was denied that he worked with honesty and diligence, as alleged; that it was denied that the petitioner/workman worked with the management till 12.11.2010 as alleged; that it was denied that services of the workman were terminated by the management on 13.11.2010 after misbehaving with him as alleged; that the services of the workman were never terminated by the management at any point of time; that it was denied that the workman at several times asked the management to allow him to join the duty; that the workman had settled his account in full and final and had received a sum of Rs. 28,500/- from the management on D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 8 out of 12 04.05.2010 towards all his service dues and thus, the question of not making the payment of salary for the month of October and November, 2011 did not arise at all; that the management regularly going under loss and seeing the financial crises of the management, the workman and the other employees had settled their accounts with the management and had joined somewhere else but the intention of the workman and his four other colleagues got malafide and they initiated the legal proceedings against the management merely to drag the management in unwanted litigation and extract some money under the garb of litigation; that it was denied that the workman was never charge sheeted or his services were terminated by the management as alleged; that it was denied that the management was not providing the legal facilities to its employees as alleged; that the services of the workman were never terminated; that he had settled his account in full and final settlement with the management and had received a sum of Rs. 28,500/- from the management towards full and final settlement of his dues; that the management being law abiding entity had been providing all legal facilities to its employees as permissible under law; that the management was regularly going under losses since mid 2009 onwards and thus had been shifting to smaller unit after disposing certain machineries and finally the management closed its business in the month of October, 2010 after selling the entire machineries and vacating the premises at Badli Industrial Area after winding up the entire business and selling the remaining stock as scrap to clear the premises at Badli Industrial Area; that it was denied that the workman ever raised any demand or he was harassed by the D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 9 out of 12 management; that it was denied that the workman went on strike due to non fulfilling of the demand; that the facts regarding serving letter upon the Provident Fund Commission on 15.11.2010 were wrong and denied for want of knowledge; that the management never deprived its employees from the legal benefits; that it was denied that on 13.11.2010 Sh. Kapil Jaisinghani directed the guard that the petitioner/workman should not come inside the factory as alleged; that the question of visiting the factory by the workman on 13.11.2010 did not arise as the workman had already settled his account with the management on 04.05.2010 after receiving the entire settlement of Rs. 28,500/-; that no notice dated 16.11.2011 or 01.12.2010 was served to the management; that it was denied that the management terminated the services of the workman in an illegal and unjustified way without any letter of termination as alleged; that it was denied that the management refused or did not allow the workman to join his duty as alleged; that the services of the workman were never terminated by the management and the workman was leveling false, frivolous and baseless allegations against the management without having any iota of truth therein though the workman had settled his account with the management seeing the financial crisis in the management; that it was denied that the management had not followed the principles of natural justice or had terminated the services of the workman in arbitrary, unjustified, or in illegal was as alleged; that it was denied that the workman was unemployed; that the workman was gainfully employed and had filed the claim petition against the management after settling his accounts D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 10 out of 12 in full and final with an intent to harass the management and to extract some unwanted money under the garb of present litigation. All other allegations were denied. Hence, it was prayed that the statement of claim be dismissed.
In rejoinder all the averments of the statement of claim were reaffirmed and of the written statement of the management were denied by the workman.
On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 14.03.2013, the following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the services of the workman have been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the management?OPW
(ii) Whether the claim filed by the workman is not maintainable in view of the fact that workman has voluntarily resigned from his services after taking amount of full and final settlement?OPM
(iii) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for and the case was adjourned for workman evidence.
Workman has filed his affidavit by way of evidence along with photocopies of certain documents in workman evidence.
However, during the pendency of the case for workman evidence/cross examination of the workman on behalf of the management in workman evidence, the workman has settled all his disputes with the management in respect of his reinstatement, D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 11 out of 12 back wages, continuity of service, consequential benefits, if any, etc., in payment of an amount of Rs.11,000/ (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) on the part of the management to the workman in this regard which amount has been received by the workman from the management by way of an account payee cheque bearing no. 000037 dated 06.12.2014 for an amount of Rs. 11,000/ (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) drawn on HDFC Bank, A24, Hauz Khas, New Delhi110016 before the National Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014, receipt of which amount the workman has acknowledged. Now, the workman is left with no claim whatsoever against the management.
Statements of the parties/on behalf of the parties to the said effect have been recorded separately, on record.
As discussed above, as the matter has been settled between the parties, the workman is not entitled to any other claim.
The Award is passed in terms of the settlement. The Ahlmad is directed to send six copies of this award to the appropriate Government. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Chandra Gupta)
on 09.12.2014 Presiding Officer Labour CourtX
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
D.I.D. No. 338/14 Page 12 out of 12