Delhi District Court
Sh. K.K. Chakraborty vs M/S. Alankit Assignments Ltd on 28 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL PILOT
COURT/POLCXVII ROOM NO. 22 :KKD COURTS: DELHI
ID No. 5252/16. (Old. No.281/14)
Unique ID No.02402C0198222014
Sh. K.K. Chakraborty
S/o Sh. H.L. Chakraborty
R/o B5/11, Sector71, Opp. Sai Temple, Noida,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.301201
..............Workman
Versus
M/s. Alankit Assignments Ltd.,
205208, Anarkali Complex, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi110055
.............Management
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.07.2014.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 24.01.2017.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 28.01.2017.
A W A R D :
1.This reference was sent by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide Order No. F.24(39)/Lab./CD/14/217 dated 19.06.14, with the following terms : "Whether the services of Sh. K.K. Chakraborty S/o Sh. H.L. Chakraborty 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?"
ID No.5252/16 1/112. Claimant's case is that he had joined the management in 1999 as a General Worker at a salary of Rs.3500/ per month. He performed his duty as per the direction of the management and did every work like deposit of electricity bills, telephone bills and dealing with banks. He was promoted from time to time and was given increments in salary and allowances. His last drawn salary of Rs.19,900/ besides perks and allowances and Rs.1,000/ as conveyance charges. He was not paid earned wages from January, 2013 onwards and despite it, he did duty up to 26.07.2013. Whenever he demanded earned wages, the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. On 26.07.2013 when he demanded earned wages from January, 2013 onwards, the Managing Director Sh. Alok Kumar Aggarwal and other staff members detained him forcibly in a room and compelled to write resignation letter under their dictation and in this way, his service was terminated. The management had not issued him any appointment letter and also did not pay bonus, PF, gratuity, leave encashment and other allowances. Even the earned wages from January, 2013 to July, 2013 were also withheld. He visited management several times after 26.07.2013 to join back but he was turned back with the threat that if he was seen again in that area, he would be got arrested in a false criminal case. He is jobless since termination. Demand notice sent on 19.09.2013 went unreplied. Case filed ID No.5252/16 2/11 before Conciliation Officer also remained unsettled.
3. Written statement is to the effect that claimant himself does not know on which date and month of the year 1999, he had joined. His last designation was Liaison Officer. He was working in a supervisory capacity and hence, he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He himself abandoned the job on 26.07.2013 and did not turn back despite various follow ups.
4. Following issues were framed on 09.04.2015:
1. Whether the claimant being in supervisory cadre, is not a workman? OPM
2. Whether the claimant himself abandoned his job on 26.07.13? OPM.
3. As per terms of reference.
4. Relief.
5. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A mentioning all the facts stated in statement of claim. He relied upon following documents:
1. Ex. WW1/1 is reference dated 16.05.14.
2. Ex. WW1/2 is the admit card of the workman.
3. Ex.WW1/3 is the pay slip for the month of February, 2004.
4. Ex. WW1/4 is the pay slip for the month of July, 2002.ID No.5252/16 3/11
5. Ex. WW1/5 is the pay slip for the month of April, 2004.
6. Ex. WW1/6 is the pay slip for the month of May, 2004.
7. Ex. WW1/7 is the pay slip for the month of June, 2012.
8. Ex. WW1/8 is the pay slip for the month of July, 2012.
9. Ex. WW1/9 is the pay slip for the month of August, 2012.
10.Ex. WW1/10 is the pay slip for the month of Sept., 2012.
11.Ex. WW1/11 is intimation u/s 143 of Income Tax Act.
12.Mark W1 is photocopy of reference order dated 16.09.14.
13.Mark W2 is photocopy of reference order dated 19.06.14.
14.Mark W3 is photocopy of letter from DLC office dated 16.12.14.
15.Mark W4 is photocopy of the POLCV order dated 10.07.14.
16.Mark W5 is photocopy of the POLCV order dated 30.10.14 & 13.11.14.
17.Mark W6 is photocopy of the POLCV order dated 18.12.14.
18.Mark W7 is photocopy of statement of workman dated 18.12.14 before POLCV.
19.Mark W8 is photocopy of Adhar Card of the workman.
20.Mark W9 is photocopy of workman's legal notice dated 18.09.13.
6. The management examined its Authorized Representative Sh. Shantilal Chaplot as MW1 who repeated the contents of written statement. Additionally, he deposed that the ID No.5252/16 4/11 claimant used to collect amount from Accounts Department for incurring expenses on Liaison work. He stopped submitting accounts of incurred expenses for 20122013 but kept on collecting advance amount from management. He had not submitted accounts of expenses of Rs.1,23,297/ for which reminder letter dated 28.12.2012 Mark M1 was sent to him in which he was intimated that if he failed to furnish the account, the outstanding amount shall be deducted from his salary. But he did not render the account and hence, the management started deducting some amount from his salary. In this regard, he is relying upon statement of account Ex.MW1/2. He stopped coming to the management from 26.07.2013 onwards. Till that date, the amount of Rs.5,290/ was still outstanding towards him. That amount could not be recovered from his salary and hence, the same was waived off.
Issue No. 1.
7. Ld. ARM argued that claimant has himself deposed in affidavit in evidence that his designation was Liaison Officer. The same fact finds mention in salary slip from Ex.WW1/7 to Ex.WW1/10. The person working on that designation was Supervisor in the management and hence, the claimant is not a workman.
On the other hand, ld. ARW admitted that last ID No.5252/16 5/11 designation of the claimant was Liaison Officer, but nature of his duty was to deposit water bills, electricity bills, telephone bills and to deal with the banks on behalf of management. He further argued that the court is not to go by designation but by the exact nature of duty.
8. It is correct that designation of the claimant is mentioned as Liaison Officer in salary slips from Ex.WW1/7 to Ex.WW1/10. To the same effect is legal notice Mark W9 dated 18.09.2013. But it has been deposed by claimant in affidavit in evidence that he performed his duty as per the directions of the management and did every work like deposit of electricity, telephone and water bills and he used to deal with banks on behalf of management. There is no deposition from MW1 about the nature of work done by the claimant. The management is strongly relying upon statement of account of the claimant from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 (collectively) Ex.MW1/2. It has been deposed by MW1 that the management used to give some amount to claimant as advance to perform his duty. Statement of account Ex.MW1/2 shows that the management had given a sum of Rs.15,000/ to the claimant on 03.09.2012 as advance for expenses. On 07.09.2012, an amount of Rs.10,000/ was duly accounted by the claimant as it is mentioned in statement that he had incurred that amount for ID No.5252/16 6/11 getting done free hold process of shop No. 206 from DDA on 07.09.2012. In September, 2012, the management had credited a sum of Rs.2,350/ in his account and reason mentioned in statement Ex.MW1/2 is that the claimant had incurred that amount for lunch, tea and snacks for guests. In the same month, an amount of Rs.808/ was credited in his account because he had incurred that amount for booking rail ticket of Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey from New Delhi to Amritsar on 25.09.2012. In October, 2012, an amount of Rs.3,545/ was credited in his account because he had incurred that sum on transportation and labour for shifting furniture and goods from Gurgaon to Dwarka on 13.10.2012. An amount of Rs.5,000/ was credited in his account in October, 2012 because he had deposited that sum with Delhi Jal Board for water expenses. Incidentally, Ex.MW1/2 proves the nature of duty of the claimant. He used to do all sundry works for the management. Such a person is definitely a workman withing Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. This issue is decided in favour of claimant and against management.
Issue No. 2:
9. Ld. ARW argued that the management had not paid earned wages to the claimant from January to July, 2013 and when he demanded earned wages, the management got annoyed and the Managing Director Sh. Alok Kumar Aggarwal accompanied by ID No.5252/16 7/11 other staff members forcibly detained claimant in a room on 26.07.2013 and compelled him to write resignation letter because the management did not want to give him earned wages from January to July, 2013.
On the other hand, ld. ARM argued that the management had not forced claimant to write resignation and in fact, he voluntarily resigned from management because he was not getting salary from January to July, 2013. The management did not give him salary because the advance amount given to the claimant was being adjusted against salary. He left the job voluntarily on 26.07.2013 leaving behind Rs.5,290/ outstanding. The management was unable to recover that amount from claimant because he had already left the job and hence, that amount was written off.
10. In nutshell, the case of the claimant is that management had forced him to write resignation letter because it did not want to give him salary from January to July, 2013. Management's case is that the resignation was voluntary. The management was not bound to give him salary because the salary was being adjusted in the defrayment of advance money.
It is quite astonishing that none of the party has placed on record resignation letter.
It becomes clear from statement of account ID No.5252/16 8/11 Ex.MW1/2 that the claimant had collected a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ from management from 03.09.2012 to 07.11.2012 as advance money for depositing bills on behalf of management but he had not accounted for the whole money and that is why, he was issued a letter Mark M1 dated 28.12.2012 that a sum of Rs.1,23,297/ was still outstanding towards him and that he should furnish account otherwise that amount would be adjusted from his salary from January, 2013 onwards. The second page of Ex.MW1/2 shows that the management had deducted a sum of Rs.19,423/ and Rs.18,729/ from the salary of the claimant for the months of January and February, 2013. Even after adjusting the salary of two months, the outstanding amount towards claimant was still Rs.85,145/. Approx Rs.80,000/ was adjusted from his salary for the months of March, April, May, June and July, 2013 as shown in third page of Ex.MW1/2. After deducting so much amount, a sum of Rs.5,290/ was still outstanding towards him. It shows that the management had correctly squared off its advance money against the salary of the claimant because he had not furnished account of advance money. As the management had rightly deducted outstanding money from his salary, the claimant was not entitled to get salary from January to July, 2013. So, he had no right to ask management to pay him earned wages from January to July, 2013. The management was not bound to pay him salary for that ID No.5252/16 9/11 period and so, there was no occasion for the management to put pressure upon him to write resignation letter. The claimant did not examine any witness or tender any document to prove that his resignation was obtained forcibly by the management. He is relying upon circumstantial evidence of non payment of earned wages from January to July, 2013 as the motive for the management to extract his resignation. Statement of account Ex.MW1/2 proves that he was not entitled to get wages for that period. Hence, he has failed to prove that circumstance. This issue is decided in favour of management and against claimant.
Issue No.3:
11. It has already been observed in issue No.2 that claimant had himself resigned the job voluntarily on 26.07.2013. There was no occasion for the management to terminate his service. This issue is decided in favour of management and against claimant.
Issue No.4:
12. Consequent to decision on issue Nos. 2 & 3, it is held that claimant is not entitled to any relief. Statement of claim is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly.
ID No.5252/16 10/1113. The requisite number of copies be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for publication of the award. File be consigned to record room.
Dictated to the Steno & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 28.01.2017. PILOT COURT/POLCXVII/ KKD, DELHI ID No.5252/16 11/11