Delhi District Court
Sh. B.K. Pandey vs The on 31 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTX
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Ref. No. : F24(1795)/06/Lab./501014
Dated : 06.12.2007
I.D no. 1884/16
Sh. B.K. Pandey
S/o Sh. Bhagwat Pandey
Represented by Hotel Mazdoor Union (Regd.),
167, Panchkuin Road, New Delhi.
Also at: 136, LIG Flat, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi110044. ........ Workman.
VERSUS
The Managements:
(1). M/s Tirupathi Drinks (P) Ltd.,
E32, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase II, New Delhi - 20.
(2). M/s Jai Drinks (P) Ltd.,
52, Janpath, Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 1. .... Managements.
Date of Institution of the case : 22.12.2007
Date on which Award is passed : 31.07.2018
:A W A R D:
The workman named above raised an industrial dispute
before the Labour Department against the termination of his services
by the management claiming that his services have been terminated
by the management illegally and unjustifiably and the appropriate
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.1 out of 23
Government on being satisfied with regard to existence of an
industrial dispute between the parties, referred the dispute to the
Court for adjudication under Section 10 (I) (c) and 12 (5) of the
Industrial Disputes Act vide order no.:Ref. No. : F24(1795)/06/
Lab./501014 dated: 06.12.2007 with the following terms of
reference:
"Whether services of Sh. B. K. Pandey S/o
Sh. Bhagwat Pandey have been
terminated under the garb of transfer from
Delhi to Jaipur illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management and if so,
to what sum of money as monetary relief
along with other consequential benefits in
terms of existing Laws/Govt. Notification
and to what other relief is he entitled to
and what other directions are necessary in
this respect?"
Fresh reference was received in the matter on 22.12.2007
and thereafter, the notice was issued to the workman. Statement of
claim was filed by the workman, in which it is stated by the workman
that the workman was appointed with the management no.1 M/s
Tirupati Drinks Pvt Ltd, as a helper since 23.012.2000 and his last
drawn monthly wages was Rs. 3300/ P.M. at the time of his illegal
termination on 27.12.2005. The workman almost used to do his job 12
to 16 hours daily but nothing has been paid for his extra job of the
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.2 out of 23
management. It is claimed that at the time of joining, the
management no.1 obtained his signature on some blank papers/
performa as well as printed papers. It is claimed that the management
has not issued appointment letter and other service benefits to the
workman despite repeated requests. When the workman demanded
the same, the management became annoyed with the workman. It is
claimed that managements are the same as management no.2 is
distributor of management no.1 and governed by the same governing
body. The employees of both the managements are transferable from
one management to another. It is claimed that the workman was
working honestly and there was no complaint against him. The
management terminated the services of the workman who is unskilled
labourer. He was transferred illegally and unlawfully in revengeful
manner vide letter dated 19.12.2005 to M/s Tripati Drinks Pvt Ltd.
Tonk Road, Gopalpura, near Flyover Jaipur with direction to join his
duty there and report to one Shri Anand Kumar on 27.12.2005
whereas there was no such unit as stated above and accordingly the
workman reported on 27.12.2005 for his duty but it was the
management who refused to allow him on duty and thereby
terminated the services of the workman without giving any notice or
notice pay and compensation. The workman sent letter through
registered post to the management on 27.12.2005 but they did not
accept the same. The workman used to visit the management till
20.02.2006 and marked his duty but the management had not paid
the salary. It is claimed that the workman sent a demand notice to the
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.3 out of 23
workman for reinstatement but of no use. It is claimed that before the
termination of the services, there was a case of general and
regularization of service of the workman was pending before the
Conciliation Officer. He approached to the Labour Commissioner for
his illegal termination and matter was referred to the Conciliation
Officer who summoned the management but the matter could not be
settled. Accordingly the present claim. It is claimed that since the
termination of his services by the management, he is unemployed.
Notice of the claim was issued to the management no.1.
Management no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating
therein that the management no.1 had never terminated the services
of the workman as otherwise alleged by him. It is submitted that the
workman had been transferred to Jaipur vide order dated 19.12.2005
on account of some serious exigencies of work. It is submitted that
the workman was transferred along with 42 other workmen. It is
submitted that the transfer was in perfect consonance with the terms,
which the workmen had willingly accepted vide its contract of
employment. It is submitted that after the transfer to Jaipur, the
workman was again called upon vide letter dt. 31.01.2006 for
resumption of duty at Jaipur but the same again proved to be exercise
in futility. It is submitted that while replying the demand notice the
management once again called upon the workman for resumption of
his duty at Jaipur but all in vain. However, as a gesture of goodwill
and in keeping with their bonofidies, in case the workman is genuinely
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.4 out of 23
interest to resume work at its establishment at Delhi from where his
services were transferred, he may approach the management. The
respondent management, however, reserves its right to initiate
appropriate disciplinary action against the workman. It is submitted that there is no relationship between answering management and respondent no.2 as alleged by petitioner workman. The answering management is an independent entity registered under the Company Act, 1956 and solely and exclusively responsible for its affairs. It is submitted that the order of transfer had directed the workman to join at Jaipur w.e.f. 27.12.2005 and thus in every view he was expected to report at Jaipur Office and not at Delhi and by any stretch of imagination the same cannot be construed as termination as maliciously suggested by workman. It is submitted that the answering management. through the union had carried out full and final settlement of all the workmen barring only two workmen out of 43 workmen, who were not inclined to go to Jaipur and instead opted for an amicable full and final settlement. In the settlements entered into by the union with the other 41 workmen and Tirupati Drinks Pvt Ltd during the course of cancellations proceedings the union undertook to withdraw all the complaints/ disputes and rising of disputes by the union on behalf of the workman, now is illegal. The entire contents of statement of claim is denied by the management. It is submitted that workman is gainfully employed and is deliberately concealing this factum from the court.
Notice of the claim was issued to the management no.2.
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.5 out of 23Management no.2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the management no.2 is franchise of Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd which is a Multinational company. The management no.1 is another separate company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has a separate constitution and is a different independent management and independently registered under Income Tax, Sale Tax, PF, ESI etc and has no link with M/s Jai Drinks Pvt Ltd. It is submitted that the workman was never employed by management no.2 and there is no nexus between the management no.2 and management no.1. Accordingly, there is no relationship of master and servant between the management no.2 and workman. The workman has deliberately, maliciously and unnecessarily dragged the management no.2 into this matter. It is submitted that the workman was actually employed by management no.1 and as such directed, administered and controlled by management no.1. It is submitted that on inquiry it came to know that the workman along with other 42 workmen were transferred by management no.1 and ultimately all 41 workmen have settled the matter during the course of conciliation proceedings except the present workman. It is submitted that if in the case like the present one, one company is held responsible for the act of the other company and dragged into the present kind of litigation, then the very purpose of the concerned legislation will be defeated and the process of law shall be abused more often. It is submitted that I.D No.155/03/2006 is pending adjudication before the court of Sh. Lal Singh, the Ld. Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal no.1 at I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.6 out of 23 Karkardooma, the delinquent workmen were seeking liberty to adduce evidence to prove that the management no.1 and 2 are one and same and in that dispute also both the managements are maintaining the same stand regarding the relationship of the delinquent workmen. It is submitted that the statement of claim is liable to be dismissed as against the answering management in the light of the judgment/order in CM (m) 1510/2007 titled as Tirupati Drinks Pvt Ltd vs Workmen Through General Mazdoor Trade Union and another decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dt. 16.07.2008 wherein it has specifically held that while deciding the issue on similar lines as to "whether the two firms viz Tirupati Drinks Pvt Ltd and Jai Drinks Pvt Ltd; are one and the same" it was held that the issue does not arise and is not to be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal since this issue is neither referred nor can be adjudicated upon; therefore this Court is to adjudicate the issues in the present case, as per the schedule of the terms of reference dated 17.12.2007, referred by the appropriate authority of Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Labour Dept and no relief can be granted in favour of the delinquent workman.
The workman filed the rejoinder to the written statement of the management no.1 in which the objection/claim taken by the management no.1 has been strongly controverted and denied and averments as raised in the statement of claim reasserted and reiterated.
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.7 out of 23From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed in the present matter on 03.06.2009:
(i) Whether the workman has himself left the job by not joining the duties in pursuance of the transfer order as alleged by management no.1?
(ii) Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between th workman and management no.1?
(iii) As per terms of reference.
(iv) Relief.
No other issues arose or pressed for and matter was listed for WE.
In support of his claim, workman examined himself as WW1. He relied upon documents Exts. WW1/1 to WW1/4 and Mark A to C on record.
Witness was cross examined by the managements no. 1 & 2 wherein he deposed that he knew the contents of his affidavit, which had been drafted at his instance. He was the employee of the managements. He denied the suggestion that he had been employed by management no.1 and not by the management no.2. He denied the suggestion that he had been issued an appointment letter by the management no.1 and which had been received by him. He had not been provided with any facilities like ESI, EPF by the management.
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.8 out of 23He denied the suggestion that his services had not been terminated by the management no.1. He denied that he had not joined his services at Jaipur. He voluntarily stated that there was no office there when he had reported there. He denied that he had been transferred on 19.12.2005. He admitted that he was asked to report at Jaipur on 27.12.2005. He voluntarily deposed that he had received the letter dated 19.12.2005 subsequently and, therefore, he had not reported at Jaipur on 27.12.2005. He voluntarily deposed that he had no information of the said direction. He had gone to Jaipur in the month of January, 2006 when he had received information. He had not met anybody there since there was no office there. He denied that there was direction to him to report to one Sh. Anand Kumar at Jaipur vide letter dated 19.12.2005. He denied that the management had opened a new factory at Jaipur for which certain old employees were transferred from Delhi to Jaipur or that he had been transferred from Delhi to Jaipur on this account. He denied that he had not reported at Jaipur when required and had reported there when there was no requirement. He denied that when there was no more requirement of his services at Jaipur the management had offered him employment at Delhi and he had not joined. He denied that the management had offered him to join his services with the management at Delhi during the pendency of the case. When the witness was questioned that whether he was willing to join the services with the management he answered that there is no management today. The managements have closed down. He denied that the managements are still I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.9 out of 23 functioning and are not closed down. He denied that he has got no proof in respect of the closure of the managements. He was not having any document to show that he was receiving salary from management no.2. He admitted that his subscriptions toward ESI and PF were being made by the management no.1. He denied that the workman Khushid Alam was earlier the employee of management no.2 and after taking full and final settlement, he had joined management no.1. He denied that he was gainfully employed subsequent to his alleged termination of services as also today. His family comprises of six persons including himself. He was living jointly along with his brothers. He had tried to search for employment but had not obtained employment. He could not specify as to where he had searched for employment. He denied that he had not tried to search for employment subsequent to his alleged termination. He denied that he could have easily got a job with his experience.
Thereafter WE was closed and matter was listed for ME.
In support of its claim, management examined MW1 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Singh. He relied upon documents Exts. MW1/1 to MW1/5 on record.
Witness was cross examined by the workman wherein he deposed that management M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd. was distributor of M/s Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. He denied that both the managements are one and the same. Salary of the employees of the management M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd. is increased at the time of notification by the Government in respect of the minimum wages I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.10 out of 23 payable to them. The management was paying HRA and commission to the employees apart from minimum wages. He denied that appointment letter had not been issued to the workman. He denied that the appointment letter Ex.MW1/5 is not bearing the signature of the workman on the same or that the same is a false and fabricated document. He could not say whether the workman had asked for increase in his salary or not. He denied that the management had terminated the services of the workman on account of a ill will because of alleged demand by the workman for increase in his salary and incentive. He admitted that the management had transferred the services of 42 employees including the workman. He admitted that the workman was employed at the post of helper with the management. The work of helper is to carry the cases of the soft drinks from vehicle to the shops and viceversa. He denied that it is not a specialized duty since it required expert handling by the helper so that the cases do not fall down and the bottles made of glass broken. No training has been given to the workman in this regard but his experience is required. He denied that the work of helper can be performed by any common person. The exigency of service for transferring the services of the workman to the place as mentioned in the transfer letter in respect of the workman Ex.MW1/1 was that business opportunity had arisen to the management at the said place. The management was not having trained helper at the place of transfer viz. Jaipur. The transfer of the workman was effected under the terms of his employment with the management vide appointment I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.11 out of 23 letter Ex.MW1/5 in his respect. He denied that the transfer of the workman in the post of helper could not have been effected by the management under the appointment letter. The workman was being paid as per the minimum wages as applicable to them. He could not say whether the rates of minimum wages are less at Jaipur than Delhi. He could not say whether the salary of Rs. 3,350/ per month to the workman was sufficient for his livelihood at Jaipur and Delhi or not. He denied that transfer of the workman from Delhi to Jaipur was malafide. He denied that traveling allowance had not been given to the workman pursuant to the transfer order. He denied that the complete address of the place of transfer had not been mentioned in the transfer order given to the workman. He denied that the same had not been mentioned deliberately by the management in the same. He could not recollect the exact address of place of transfer but he denied that he was not able to tell the exact address of place of address since there was no such address. He voluntarily deposed that address of the place of transfer of the workman is mentioned in the transfer order. The management M/s Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. of which they were the distributor was functioning at the place of transfer. He could not say as to how many employees had joined at the place of transfer consequent to their transfer by the management. He admitted that the except for two employees all the other employee who had been transferred have settled their dues with the management. He could not say as to when the settlement has been affected between the said employees and the management. He I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.12 out of 23 denied that the management has retrenched the services of any employee either in the year 2005 or 2011. He denied that the management is in the habit of changing its name and dispensing with the services of its employees. The management M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd.is not functioning since December, 2009. There is no staff with the management as on today. There is not even a helper employed with the management as on today. He denied that he had filed a false affidavit by way of evidence or that he was deposing falsely being the Director of the management. Thereafter, M.E. was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
The management no.2 has examined one witness namely Sh. Ranjan George as MW2, who in his examinationinchief tendered by way of affidavit Ex.MW2/A has stated that the management no.1 is a separate company registered under the companies act and has a separate constitution and is a different independent management than the management no.2 and it is independently registered under Income Tax,. Sales Tax, PF & ESI and has no link with management no.2 and the working between two separate establishment was solely on the basis of principle to principle. The company has separate legal entity. The copies of Memorandum and Articles of Association of both the companies are Ex.MW2/1 & Ex.MW2/2 respectively. The workman was never employed by management no.2 M/s Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and as such there is no relationship of master and servant between the workman I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.13 out of 23 and Management of Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. The claimant at the behest of Hotel's Worker Union, has deliberately, maliciously and unnecessarily dragged the management no.2 into this matter. In fact he was actually employed with the management no.1.
During cross examination he stated that the management was having its depot/office at E32 Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi till 2009 and the management no.1 i.e. M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt, Ltd. was also having its depot at the said premises. He denied that the entrance of both the managements at the said premises was the same or that the management was the main distributor of PEPSI Cola. He denied that M/s Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. is the principal employer of M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd. or that M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd was a contractor of M/s Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd.
I have perused the entire record. I have heard the submission of the AR of the workman and the management. My issue wise findings are as under: For the sake of convenience, I shall proceed to decide issue No.II first, prior to issue no.1.
: ISSUE No.II : Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.14 out of 23 workman and management no.1?
Perusal of the record reveals that in this case there are two managements i.e. management no.1 is M/s Tirupati Drinks (P) Ltd. and management no.2 is M/s Jai Drinks (P) Ltd.
In its entire Written Statement, no where the management no.1 has claimed that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and management no.1, rather, admittedly the claimant was the employee of management no.1 and management no.1 had issued the transfer order to him to join his duty at Jaipur. In view of the aforesaid it can not be said that there is no relationship of employer and employee between management no.1 and the workman.
However, it is seen from the record that management no.2 has taken the objection that the workman was never employed by management no.2 and there is no nexus between the management no.2 and management no.1. Accordingly, there is no relationship of master and servant between the management no.2 and workman.
Perusal of the record reveals that in its Written Statement, the management no.2 has completely denied the employer and employee relationship between the claimant and management no.2 and admittedly, the workman was appointed with the management no.1 M/s Tirupathi Drinks (P) Ltd, as a helper on 23.12.2000 and his last drawn monthly wages was I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.15 out of 23 Rs. 3300/ P.M. In such circumstances, it is clear that there is employer employee relationship between the workman and management no.2 and as such no liability can be fastened upon the management no.2 i.e. M/s Jai Drinks (P) Ltd.
Issue stands decided accordingly.
Now I shall proceed to decided Issue No.1 & 3 together, as they are interrelated :
ISSUE N o . I: "Whether the workman has himself left the job by not joining the duties in pursuance of the transfer order as alleged by management no.1?"
: ISSUE No.III: "As per terms of reference."
In this matter, following reference has been received for adjudication: "Whether services of Sh. B. K. Pandey S/o Sh.
Bhagwat Pandey have been terminated under the garb of transfer from Delhi to Jaipur illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. Notification and to what other relief is he entitled to and what other directions are necessary in this respect?"
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.16 out of 23In its written Statement, the Management no.1 M/s Tirupati Drinks has claimed that the workman had been transferred to Jaipur vide order dated 19.12.2005 on account of some serious exigencies of work, which was in perfect consonance with the terms, which the workmen had willingly accepted vide its contract of employment. Further after the transfer to Jaipur, the workman was again called upon vide letter dt. 31.01.2006 for resumption of duty at Jaipur but the same again proved to be exercise in futility. Further while replying the demand notice the management once again call upon the workman for resumption of his duty at Jaipur but all in vain. The workman had been duly issued the appointment letter, which he had accepted of his free will and volition and after reading and understanding its clauses, he had accepted the same. The workman enjoyed all the legal benefits to which he had valid and legal entitlement. Further the management through the union had carried out full and final settlement of all the workmen barring only two workmen out of 43 workmen, who were not inclined to go to Jaipur and instead opted for an amicable full and final settlement. The order of transfer had directed the workman to join at Jaipur w.e.f 27.12.2005 and thus in every view he was expected to report at Jaipur office and not at Delhi and by any stretch of imagination the same cannot be construed as termination as maliciously suggested by the petitioner workman.
On the contrary, the workman in his Statement of claim has categorically stated that workman was appointed with the management no.1 M/s Tirupathi Drinks (P) Ltd, as a helper on I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.17 out of 23 23.12.2000 and his last drawn monthly wages was Rs.3300/ P.M. at the time of his illegal termination on 27.12.2005. Further management no.2 M/s Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. is the distributor of management no.1 and governed by the same governing body. The employees of both the managements are transferable from one management to another. The workman was working honestly and there was no complaint against him. Further the management, who with intent to terminate the services of the workman, who is unskilled labourer, transferred his services illegally and unlawfully in revengeful manner vide letter dated 19.12.2005 to M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Tonk Road, Gopalpura, near Flyover Jaipur with the directions to join his duty there and to report one Sh. Anand Kumar on 27.12.2005, whereas there was no such unit at the said place. The workman was not issued any appointment letter at the time of his initial appointment despite of repeated requests and demand s for the same. The management was not giving the benefits of services to the workman and it was the workman, who joined the workman Union and demanded benefits of his services and due to this reason the management was annoyed and workman was intimidated and harassed. The workman lodged the complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, regarding his illegal, unlawful and unjustifiable termination of his service by the management and the matter was referred to Conciliation Officer but in vain. The workman reported for duty on 27.12.2005 as usual but he was refused to take on duty and it was said that the workman was transferred to Jaipur Unit of the company and he should go and join I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.18 out of 23 there. Therefore he was terminated w.e.f. 27.12.2005 arbitrarily, malafidely and illegally when he was refused to take on duty on that day.
During the course of arguments, it was contended on behalf of workman that there is no service condition given to the workman that his services are transferable to outstation. It is claimed that in the transfer order the Tirupathi Drinks (P) Ltd. is opening a new unit at Tonk Road, Near Gopalpura, Flyover Crossing, Jaipur but the unit was not yet opened and as such he could not have transferred at all. No specific address was given and the whole stretch of place was given his new place of posting. The workman was transferred to an imaginary place at Jaipur to terminate him illegally under the guise of transfer. However, he went to Jaipur in his anxiety to join duty there but there was no such office in the entire area and the place is a jungle rarely inhabited. He served a demand notice to the management thereby asking the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential relief but the management refused to budge. The workman therefore raised Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer for his reinstatement but no settlement could be arrived there, hence, the present complaint.
According to the management M/s Tirupati Drinks Pvt. Ltd., the workman was transferred to Jaipur in pursuant to one of the conditions of his Appointment Letter Ex.MW1/5, whereas the workman in his statement of claim as well as evidence tendered by I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.19 out of 23 way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A has categorically stated that he was not issued any appointment letter by the management. In the circumstances, when the workman has denied of having received the Appointment Letter, onus is shifted upon the management to prove that the appointment letter was actually issued and received by the workman and also to prove that the signature of workman on appointed Letter Ex.MW1/5 actually belongs to workman. But the management has failed to do so. No application for obtaining the specimen signature of workman or his hand writing for the relevant period has been moved on behalf of management to send them for the expert opinion to conclude that the signature on the appointment letter Ex.MW1/5 belongs to workman only. In the absence of same, it can not be said that workman was actually issued any appointment letter and in such circumstances, it can not be said that workman was having knowledge about the clause of his transfer to any place in India, of appointment letter Ex.MW1/5.
In his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the workman has claimed that the workman was transferred to an imaginary place at Jaipur to terminate him illegally under the guise of transfer. However, he went to Jaipur in his anxiety to join duty there but there was no such office in the entire area and the place is a jungle rarely inhabited. Hence, the deponent was transferred to a nonexisting office only to wreck vengeance and terminate the workman illegally.
On the contrary, the management no.1 has led no I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.20 out of 23 evidence on record in this regard. No document in respect of opening of new unit of management no.1 at Tonk Road, Near Gopalpura, Flyover Crossing, Jaipur, in the form of incorporation certification, Memorandum and Article of Association of Management No.1 at Jaipur etc. has been placed and proved on record by the management in order to falsify the claim of workman that he was transferred to an imaginary place at Jaipur.
Admittedly, the workman was appointed with the management no.1 M/s Tripathi Drinks (P) Ltd, as a helper on 23.12.2000 and his last drawn monthly wages was Rs. 3300/ per month and no show cause notice or charge sheet was ever issued by management no.1 in respect of the workman not appearing for his duty. It is also not disputed that no enquiry was conducted against the workman. The arbitrariness is an antithesis to the rule of law, equity and fare play and the principle of natural justice is to be followed. Since no notice, notice pay, compensation or any other consequential benefits were given to the workman prior to termination of his services, the termination of the services of the workman by the management no.1 on 27.12.2005 is illegal and unjustified and in these circumstance it can not be said that the workman has himself left the job by not joining the duties in pursuance of the transfer order as alleged by management no.1. Hence both the issues are liable to be decided against the management no.1 and same stand decided accordingly.I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.21 out of 23
:( RELIEF): In his statement of claim the workman has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages alongwith consequential benefits etc. in favour of workman and against the management no.1 M/s Tripupati Drinks (P) Ltd. but in the considered opinion of the court this is not a fit case for the reinstatement, as a considerable period of time has been elapsed and the end of justice will be served if a lumpsum compensation is awarded to the workman instead of reinstatement, backwages, and other consequential benefits. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and terms of reference, and keeping in view the tenure of service of the workman with the management and his last drawn salary a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,38,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Only) is awarded to the workman instead of reinstatement and backwages and other consequential benefits. The management is directed to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.1,38,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Only) to the workman within three months from the date of publication of award. If the management failed to pay the said amount of Rs.1,38,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Only) to the workman within the stipulated period, the workman is at liberty to get recover the said compensation amount of Rs.1,38,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Only) from the management along with an interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of passing of award till the date of recovery of the amount of compensation. The award is passed accordingly and reference is answered accordingly. Requisite number I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.22 out of 23 of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for necessary compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 31.07.2018 (RAKESH KUMARI) Presiding Officer Labour CourtX Dwarka Courts, Delhi.Digitally signed by RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2018.08.04
15:47:58 +0530
I.D.No 1884/2016 Page No.23 out of 23