Delhi District Court
C/O Janta General Mazdoor Union vs M/S. The Delhi State Cooperative on 3 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR: POLC. V : KARKARDOOMA
COURT: DELHI
ID No. 29/10
Sh. Rai Singh Dabas
C/o Janta General Mazdoor Union
3367/244, Hansapuri, Tri Nagar,
Delhi35.
........... Workman
Vs.
M/s. The Delhi State Cooperative
Marketing & Supply Federation Ltd.,
Nangloi, Rohtak Road, Delhi110041.
........... Management
ORDER ON THE POINT OF JURISDICTION : THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE
No. 1
The case of the workman is that he was initially appointed as
Storekeeper on 01.09.1979 and worked upto September, 1984 but
thereafter, his services were removed by the management with other
twenty two workmen. However, on 27.05.1992 he was again appointed as
Storekeeper but the management took the work of Salesman from him. A
consolidated salary of Rs. 1,954/ per month was paid to him by the
management but again on 31.01.1994 he was removed from services
without any notice, without paying earned wages for the month of January,
1994 on the ground that he has become surplus in the staff of the
management and his services were not required by the management. The
act of the management is purely arbitrary and unauthorized and against the
ID No. 29/10 1/6
principles of natural justice. The management did not provide legal
facilities such as leave wages, provident fund, ESI facility etc. The
management did not comply the conditions of section 22B and 22F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman worked with the management
since 27.05.1992 without any brake in service with his full skill and ability.
A notice dated 14.02.1994 was served on the management but the
management did not give any reply to the same. The conciliation
proceedings failed due to adamant attitude of the management. A
reference no. F.24 (4478)/94Lab./1595459 dated 16.06.1995 was sent by
the concerned Govt. for adjudication of industrial dispute between him and
the management by formulating the following issue:
"Whether the services of Shri Rai
Singh Dabas 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?"
A letter dated 17.04.1995 was written by the management
regarding action taken by the management on his complaint dated
07.01.1994. Sh. Balbir Singh, the Manager at the relevant time, asked the workman to sell onion @ Rs. 8/ per Kg. though the rate was Rs. 6/ per Kg. He asked him to issue a cash memo under his signature but the workman refused to do so. He terminated his services of the workman as he refused to do the aforesaid illegal act. Sh. Balbir Sigh Nagar had appointed Sh. Ravinder Kumar, his real nephew on 31.03.1993 by ID No. 29/10 2/6 tampering the attendance register. He marked his attendance since 14.01.1993. After termination of the workman, one Sh. Kapoor Singh was appointed as Salesman immediately by the management. After termination of the workman, the management appointed sixseven workmen. As per letter dated 31.03.1994 the workman was appointed as a Salesman on probation and the probation period was only for six months, which the workman had already completed. A request is made by the workman that directions be given to the management to reinstate his services with full back wages, compensation, promotion, regularization of service, affixation of grade, service compensation, leave benefits and bonus etc.
2. The management contested the industrial dispute raised by the workman on different grounds; primarily the termination of the workman does not amount to retrenchment and compliance of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not essential in his case; the management is not covered under the definition of word "industry"; the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by the workman. On merits also, the management refuted the facts stated by the workman and gave detailed replies to the averments made by the workman in his statement of claim.
3. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 11.05.2010.
(1)Whether the claim is barred by jurisdiction?OPM (2)Whether the services of the workman have been illegally terminated by the management?OPW (3)Relief.ID No. 29/10 3/6
The issue no. 1 was treated as preliminary issue.
4. I have heard the submissions of Sh. R. K. Shukla, AR for the workman and Sh. Abhik, AR for the management.
AR for the workman has stated that as per case law titled as Bangalore Water Supply Vs. A. Rajappa, AIR, 1978, Supreme Court, 548 this court has jurisdiction as the management is covered within the word "industry" and the workman is covered under the definition of "workman" provided u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute between workman and management is an industrial dispute and the reference is rightly made by the Govt.
AR for the management stated that as per section 50 of the Byelaws of The Delhi State Cooperative Marketing & Suppliers Federation Ltd., Nangloi, Delhi, this court has no jurisdiction and the matter is required to be decided by the Registrar of Cooperative societies. He has also relied upon case law titled as Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1997) 4, Supreme Court Cases, 391 and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Appeal no. 6565/1997 titled as MGT. of Som Vihar Apt. Owners Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. Vs. Workman C/o Indian Engg. & Genl. Mazdoor.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. It is observed that AR of the management has only cited the provision and has ID No. 29/10 4/6 not shown how the case is barred by jurisdiction of this court. I have perused the section 50 of Byelaws of The Delhi State Cooperative Marketing & Suppliers Federation Limited, Nangloi, Delhi110041 which is stated an under:
"If any dispute touching the constitution or business of the Federation arise, between members or past members or past members of the Federation or persons claiming through a member or past member or between members or past members or persons or claimant and any officer agent or servant of Federation or its committee and any officer, agent, member, or servant of the Federation (past or present) it shall be referred to the Registrar at provided in the Cooperative Societies act and the Rules framed their under.
6. It seems that the aforesaid provision is limited to any dispute touching the Constitution or business of the Federation only between the members past or present or the persons claiming through the said members or their agents or servants but, it does not deal with the employeeemployer relationship between the workman and the management. Therefore, it seems that the aforesaid provision is not applicable in the present case. The case laws cited by the management are also not applicable in the present case as the judgments deal with the persons of status of daily wagers but the facts stated by the workman are altogether different. In statement of claim the workman has stated that he was Storekeeper and was doing the ID No. 29/10 5/6 work of Salesman therefore, it seems that the judgments cited by the management are not applicable in the present case. It seems that the case law cited by the workman titled as Bangalore Water Supply Vs. A. Rajappa, AIR, 1978, Supreme Court, 548 is applicable in the present case as the management was doing systematic activity, working on cooperation between the employee and employer and as per the aforesaid Byelaws of The Delhi State Cooperative Marketing & Suppliers Federation Limited, Nangloi, Delhi110041 filed by the management, the main object of the management as stated in section 3 is to promote the economic interest of the members of the Federation therefore, it seems that the management is engaged in enhancing the economic interest therefore, it seems that this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the statement of claim filed by the workman and the aforesaid reference. Hence, the preliminary issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Put up on 17.03.2011 for workman evidence.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR) POLC.V:KKD:DELHI:
03.02.2011 ID No. 29/10 6/6