Delhi District Court
Mohd. Amir vs M/S Maynah Designs on 6 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 4300/18
CNR No. DLCT13-005552-2018
Sh. Mohd. Amir
S/o Sh. Mohd. Firoz
R/o C.N.-693, Rang Puri Pahari,
Shankar Camp, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi.
Through:
All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.)
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
............ Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Maynah Designs
Office No. 9, Khasra No. 440,
Village Jonapur, Mandi Road,
New Delhi -110047.
2. M/s Maynah Designs
Tandon Farm House No. 11,
Mandi Road, Mandi Village,
New Delhi -110047.
.......... Management
Date of receiving of Reference : 21.12.2018
Date of passing Award : 06.06.2025
AWAR D
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 1
1. Vide Reference No. F.24(347)/Lab./SD/2018/8151
dated 19.04.2018, the following Reference was received for
adjudication, from Joint Labour Commissioner, under Section 10
(1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with
Notification No. S-110011/2/75/DK (IA) dated 14.04.1975
and Notification No. F-1/31/61/616/Estt./2008/7458 dated
03.03.2009 in respect of industrial dispute between the Workman
and Management:
"Whether services of Sh. Mohd. Amir S/o
Sh. Mohd. Firoz have been terminated
illegally or unjustifiably by the management
in the garb of transfer and, if so, to what
relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
2. Notice of aforesaid Reference was issued to the
Workman and after service of said notice, Statement of Claim
was filed by workman. The brief facts in narrow compass,
relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present matter, as
stated in his Statement of Claim, are as follows:
i. That the workman since 31.08.2009 had
been working as a Tailor with M/s. Maynah
Designs, (hereinafter referred to as
"Management") with his last drawn salary
was Rs.11,830/- per month. He never gave
any chance of complaint to the management
during his service period, hence, the tenure
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 2
of the workman with the management
remained unblemished.
ii. That the management had manipulated the
PF accounts of the employees working under
it and had deposited the less amount
regarding which complaint through their
union was filed before Regional
Commissioner of Provident Fund, Ministry
of Labour. The records of management were
checked and management was directed to
deposit the PF amount of its employees.
Upon receiving such direction, the
management started adopting anti-labour
practices against the workman and also
started threatening to terminate his services.
iii. That on 03.03.2017 Delhi Government
issued a notification regarding increasing the
minimum wages of the employees. But the
management on 06.03.2017 in order to
escape from its liability of giving wages as
per minimum wages declared by the Delhi
Government vide notification dated
03.03.2017, without giving any notice,
without making any payment had illegally
terminated the services of the workman and
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 3
locked down its institution and shifted with
all his belongings / assets to Plot No. 50,
Gopal Pahari, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
Since then it has been running its business
there. Hence, the termination of the services
of the workman by the management is
illegal.
iv. That the workman had sent a demand
notice dated 06.03.2017 to the management
through registered AD / speed post thereby
demanding his reinstatement which was duly
recceived to the management but the
management did neither replied nor
complied with the same.
v. That the workman with his co-workers
was constrained to file a complaint before
Regional Asst. Labour Commissioner.
Pursuant to that Labour Inspector namely,
Sunil Kumar visited the management
institution to get the workman reinstated but
the management refused to reinstate the
workman. The representative of the
management appeared before Assistant
Labour Commissioner during conciliation
proceedings in compliance of notice but
there he refused to reinstate the workman.
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 4
vi. That the workman is unemployed from
the date of his illegal termination and
despite his best efforts, he could not get the
job elsewhere.
vii. That the workman alongwith his co-
workers gave an application to the
management thereby demanding their unpaid
wages w.e.f. 06.03.2017 till that day but the
management refused to make the payment of
wages and also refused to reinstate the
workman. Hence, the present statement of
claim with request to reinstate the workman
in service with full back wages and
continuity of his service along with all
consequential benefits arising therefrom and
unpaid dues.
3. DEFENCES:
Notice of Statement of Claim was issued to
Management and Management filed its Written Statement in
which allegations leveled in the statement of claim have been
denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. In the
Written Statement, the management raised following defences:
i. That the statement of claim is false,
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 5
frivolous, vexatious, confused and is based
on distorted facts and false premises with a
view to mislead this learned court and to
extort money from the management illegally.
ii. That the workman has not approached this
learned court with clean hands. The
workman, is guilty of suggestio falsi and
suppressio veri.
iii. That the present matter is not
"retrenchment'"by any stretch of description
as prescribed in the Industrial Dispute Act. In
fact, it is a case where the workman is not
joining his duty at the shifted 'premises
despite reminders of the management'. By
way of present claim the workman is
shurking away from his duty which
tantamount to 'Unfair Trade Practice' on the
part of the workman he has abused the
process of law.
iv. The workman had joined the services with
the management vide appointment letter
dated 01.01.2007 (alongwith Bio Data of the
workman). According to the Clause 12 of
the said appointment letter stipulating terms
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 6
and conditions of the employment the job of
the workman was transferable at the option
of the management- herein. The present
matter is not "retrenchment" by any stretch
of description as prescribed under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The present case is a
case of workman not joining his duties at the
shifted premises despite reminders of the
management.
v. That the statement of claim under reply is
miserably barred by Limitation and hence is
liable to be dismissed outrightly.
vi. That in the present matter the reference
by the government is improper and illegal in
as much that the conciliation officer had
failed to perform his duties as prescribed
under the I.D. Act, 1947. As per S.12(2) of
the I.D. Act a Conciliation Officer shall
investigate the dispute without delay. As per
S.12(6) of the I.D. Act a report shall be
submitted within 14 days of the
commencement of the conciliation
proceedings or within such shorter period as
may be fixed by the appropriate government.
Provided that, subject to the approval of the
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 7
conciliation officer the time for the
submission of the report may be extended by
such period as may be agreed upon in
writing by all the parties to the dispute. In
the present matter neither the report was
submitted in due time nor any written
extension forms the part of record. This
procedural lapse invalidates the very report
which became the basis of referring the
present matter by the government.
vii. That on 23.09.2015, the workers of the
management through the workers union
lodged a complaint with the inspector of
factories, Delhi stating therein that the
factory of management was being run
without grant of required licence and sought
action against the management. That the
management herein had to shift its factory to
an industrial area situated at Plot no. 359,
Sector-8, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon under the
compelling circumstances arising out of the
proceedings in the court of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi under the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948.
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 8
viii. The management had very promptly put
up the notice dated 04.03.2017 on the factory
notice board and had also intimated the
office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner
vide communication dated 04.03.2017. The
abovesaid notices clearly stated that the
factory had been shifted to its new address
from 05.03.2017 onwards and the workmen
were told to report for their respective duties
on 06.03.2017. Further, the workmen were
informed by the management that even if the
workmen reported late till lunch time, no
wages will be deducted. Not only that, the
management went a step forward and
assured the workmen that each workman
shall be paid the conveyance charges (bus
fare) for the first day so that they can arrange
their transportation means for future. When
no workman reported for the duty the
management vide separate individual notice
dated 09.03.2017 each workman had also
served "Notice for continuance absence from
duty."
ix. That as per Clause 12 of Appointment
Letter Terms and Conditions of the
employment, the job of the workman was
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 9
transferable at the option of the management
herein but it is the workman who is not
complying with the requirements of his own
appointment letter which cast legal
obligation upon the workman to resume /
join duties at the new address of
management - herein.
x. That the workman instead of reporting his
duties at the transferred place has filed a
complaint before Assistant Labour
Commissioner, District South, New Delhi
wherein false allegations regarding his illegal
termination inter-alia on false ground and
lock down (talabandi) of management have
been levelled. Actually the services of
workman was never terminated by the
management.
xi. That the management also joined the
proceedings before the conciliation officer
and Labour Inspector.
xii. That on 08.03.2017 Mr. Sunil Kumar,
Labour Inspector pursuant to the complaint
filed by the workman through his union
before Assistant Labour Commissioner,
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 10
visited the old factory premises at Delhi (the
factory had already been shifted to Manesar
w.e.f. 06.03.2017) and served a notice to the
security guard Mr. Jitender who was present
there alleging the termination of the workers
etc. by the management.
xiii. The Labour Inspector also recorded the
statement of the said security guard to the
effect that the factory premises had already
been shifted to Manesar, Gurgaon. The
Inspector also took the pictures of the notice
board through his mobile.
xiv. That in compliance with the notice dated
08.03.2017, the management sent its reply
along with certain records and the case was
adjourned to 17.03.2017. In the said reply, it
was reported that none of the worker had
reported to the shifted address of the factory
on 08.03.2017 and no copy of complaint was
supplied to the management alongwith the
notice. On 17.03.2017 conciliation
proceedings were held and the outset the
conciliation officer asked the management to
make payment of dues of the workers. On
that day during the conciliation proceedings
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 11
on asking of the conciliation officer all the
workers clearly refused to join the duty at the
new address on their personal grounds.
Hence, the management offered full and
final payment to all its workman which was
denied by them under the influence of the
workers union.
xv. The management issued a final notice
dated 25.03.2017 to all the workers by
speed-post thereby requesting them to join
their duty at the new place immediately but
all in vain. That the management paid a sum
of Rs. 5000/- to each worker (wherever the
wages were due above 5000/-) and the entire
balance amount has been paid on
03.04.2017. Further, the workman has raised
the issue of minimum wages before the
concerned authority but he is mixing up the
issue. As there was no discharged, dismissal
and termination of service on the part of the
management, hence, present claim is not
maintainable.
xvi. That vide letter dated 03.04.2017 the
management brought to the kind notice of
the Deputy Labour Commissioner (District
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 12
South), New Delhi that in compliance with
the order dated 17.03.2017, the management
had paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- to each worker
(wherever the wages were due above 5000/-)
and the entire balance amount had also been
paid on 03.04.2017 against the wages for the
month of February, 2017.
xvii. The management presumed that the
Presiding Officer must have sent the required
Failure Report under Section 12(4) of the
I.D. Act to the appropriate government to the
effect that in spite of efforts no compromised
/ settlement could be arrived at as the said
report is required to be submitted as soon as
practicable after close of the investigation.
There is a prayer for dismissal of the
statement of claim.
4. To this Written Statement filed by the Management,
the workman had also filed his rejoinder in which contents of the
statement of claim have been reiterated and allegations levelled
in the Written Statement have been denied.
5. ISSUES:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
issues were framed on 23.09.2021 which were later on re-framed
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 13
on 16.11.2024 as follows:
1. Whether the claim of the claimant is barred by
limitation? OPM
2. Whether despite repeated reminders of the
management, the workman did not join his duty at
the shifted premises at Manesar, Gurgaon, where the
management had to shift its factory in compliance
to the order of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Karkardoom Court? OPM
3. Whether the services of the workman were
terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the
management on 06.03.2017? OPW
4. Relief.
6. WORKMAN EVIDENCE:
In order to prove his case, the workman stepped into
the witness-box as WW-1. He exhibited his affidavit as
Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Mark-A Photocopy of demand notice dated
06.03.2017 and photocopy of courier receipt
Mark-B Photocopy of demand notice dated
25.05.2018 and photocopy of courier receipt
Mark-C Photocopy of salary slip
Mark-D Photocopy of ESIC card
7. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 14 The Management got examined Sh. Brij Mohan S/o Sh. Babu Ram as MW-1. He exhibited his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Mark-A Photocopy of appointment letter
Mark-B Photocopy of complaint by workman
Mark-C Photocopy of notice dated 04.03.2017
Mark-D Photocopy of notice dated 09.03.2017
Mark-E Photocopy of speed post
Mark-F Photocopy of Notice dated 04.03.2017
Mark-G Photocopy of Notice dated 09.03.2017 along
with postal receipt
Mark-H Photocopy of Notice dated 08.03.2017
Mark-I Photocopy of Reply dated 10.03.2017
Mark-J Photocopy of Letter dated 21.03.2017
Mark-K Photocopy of Final notice dated 25.03.2017
Mark-L Photocopy of Postal receipt
Mark-M Photocopy of Notice dated 28.03.2017
Mark-N Photocopy of of letter dated 03.04.2017
Mark-O Photocopy of Notice dated 05.04.2017
Mark-P Photocopy of Reply dated 10.04.2017
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 15 Mark-Q Photocopy of email Mark-R Photocopy of Speed post receipt Mark-S Photocopy of communication dated 10.05.2017 Mark-T Photocopy of notice dated 17.01.2018 Mark-U Photocopy of letter dated 05.02.2018 with photocopy of postal receipt.
Mark-V Certificate U/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
9. The issue-wise findings are as under :
10. ISSUE No. 11. Whether the claim of the claimant is barred by limitation? OPM The onus to prove issue no. 1 was conferred upon the management.
In order to discharge its onus, the management/respondent has got examined Sh. Brij Mohan as MW1. He deposed that Statement of claim is miserably barred by limitation and hence is liable to be dismissed out rightly.
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 16 It is relevant to pen down here that the management has not mentioned how and in what manner, the present Statement of claim is barred by limitation. However, since it is a legal issue, hence, is being decided by the Court before proceeding further.
It is also worthy to note here that the present matter is LIR based on Reference sent by Joint Labour Commissioner, South District, Govt. of NCT of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Labour Department.
11. Here, it is necessary to refer Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which deals with the Reference of the disputes to Boards, Courts and Tribunal:-
"10(1)[Where the appropriate government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing-
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a court for inquiry; or
(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute , whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication."
It is worthwhile to mention here that as per the landmark judgement titled as Raghubir Singh Vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways,Hissar passed on 03.09.2014 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, "limitation act is not applicable in the Industrial Dispute Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in said the judgment passed in 2014 had held that the limitation act is not LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 17 applicable to the references made under Industrial Dispute act and Section 10 (1) of the act enables the appropriate government to make reference of an industrial dispute which exists or is apprehended at any time to one of the authorities mentioned in the section. How and in what manner or through what machinery, the government is apprised of the dispute is hardly relevant. The only requirement of taking action U/s 10 (1) is that there must be some material before the government which will enable the appropriate government to form an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Relevant portion of the judgment (supra) is reproduced hereinunder:-
10. The learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana, Mr. Narender Hooda has vehemently contended that the Labour Court was right in rejecting the reference of the industrial dispute being on the ground that it was barred by limitation by answering the additional issue No. 2 by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota v.
Mohan Lal[1] wherein this Court has held as under:-
"19. We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. v. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 18 an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed."
11. In our view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute; it has erroneously held it to be barred by limitation. This award was further erroneously affirmed by the High Court, which is bad in law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. According to Section 10(1) of the Act, the appropriate government 'at any time' may refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, if it is of the opinion that such an industrial dispute between the workman & the employer exists or is apprehended.
"7.......Section 10(1) enables the appropriate Government to make reference of an industrial dispute which exists or is apprehended at any time to one of the authorities mentioned in the section. How and in what manner or through what machinery the Government is apprised of the dispute is hardly relevant.......The only requirement for taking action under Section 10(1) is that there must be some material before the Government which will enable the appropriate Government to form an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. This is an administrative function of the Government as the expression is understood in contradistinction to judicial or quasi-judicial function..." Therefore, it is implicit from the above case that in case of delay in raising the industrial dispute, the appropriate government under Section 10(1) of the Act has the power, to make reference to either Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, if it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended at any time, between the workman and the employer. Further, in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. [3], it is held by this Court as under:-
In view of above, it is crystally clear that the limitation act is not applicable to the References made under Industrial Dispute act. In other words, the management has failed to prove that the claim of the claimant is barred by limitation.
LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 19 In light above discussion, here it is said that the present claim of the claimant is not barred by limitation.
Hence, issue no.-1 is decided against the management and in favour of the the workman/claimant.12. ISSUE No. 2 & 3
2. Whether despite repeated reminders of the management, the workman did not join his duty at the shifted premises at Manesar, Gurgaon, where the management had to shift its factory in compliance to the order of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardoom Court? OPM AND
3. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management on 06.03.2017? OPW Since both issues are inter-connected, hence are being decided together.
The onus to prove issue no. 2 was conferred upon the LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 20 management/respondent while the onus to prove issue no. 3 was conferred upon the workman.
As per the testimony of WW1/workman, he joined the management w.e.f. 31.08.2009 as a Tailor and his last drawn salary was Rs.11,582/- per month. Further, during his service period with the management, he did his duties with sincerity and dedication but despite assurance, the management did not provide him statutory benefits like bonus, weekly holidays, annual holidays, overtime and appointment letter etc. More so, he was also assured for providing minimum wages fixed by Govt. but less minimum wages were paid to him. Furthermore, at the time of joining the services, the management has got his signature and thumb impression on blank papers and vouchers with revenue stamp under the pretext of using the same for the purpose of PF and ESI only. He was told by the management that it was the normal practice of the management to get sign the blank papers and vouchers at the time of joining and the above-said practice was as a pre-condition to get the job with the management. Despite repeated demand, he was not paid for his service of 4-6 hours as overtime and other legal benefits were also not paid. He also deposed that despite deduction of the PF contribution from his salary by the management, the management had deposited the less amount by manipulating his PF account for which the workkamn raised the issue before office of PF Department, pursuant to which PF department visited the management institution, credentials were checked wherein irregularities were LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 21 found, hence the management had been directed by Regional PF Commissioner to deposit the P.F. contribution of all employees as per law. After getting such directions, the management got annoyed and in order to take revenge, started pressurizing him to resign from his services but he refused to resign. Due to repeated demands of legal facilities like bonus, overtime, dues, leave and minimum wages as per law and his refusal to resignation, the management got furious and in order to take revenge, on 06.03.2017, the management had terminated his services without any rhyme and reason, arbitrary/illegally and unjustifiably, without issuance of any letter, show cause notice and without holding any enquiry and had shifted the company to 11, Dera Mandi Road, New Delhi with the help of goons illegally without any intimation to workman and locked the office at 09, Khasra No. 440, Village-Jaunpur, Mandi Road, New Delhi. He had sent a demand notice to the management thereby demanding his reinstatement with continuity of his services with full back wages and all other consequential benefits but the management did neither reply nor paid unpaid dues. Filing of complaint by him alongwith co-workers before Labour Department also turned futile and the management had illegally closed the establishment. He alongwith co-workers raised Industrial dispute before the conciliation officer but the management did not appear there despite receipt of notice and he had also not been reinstated, hence conciliation proceedings ended in failure due to the adamant attitude of the management. He also deposed that the management did neither issued any appointment letter to him nor LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 22 any notice regarding shifting of the management was displayed on the notice board and documents regarding this filed by the management is fabricated and forged. He also deposed that the management did not send any notice asking him to report his duties.
On the other hand, MW1-Brij Mohan deposed that the workman had joined the services with the management vide appointment letter dated 01.01.2007 (alongwith Bio Data of the workman). According to the Clause 12 of the said appointment letter stipulating terms and conditions of the employment the job of the workman was transferable at the option of the management- herein. The present matter is not "retrenchment" as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. The present case is a case where the workman is not joining his duties at the shifted premises despite reminders of the management. On 23.09.2015, the workers of the management through the Workers' Union lodged a complaint with the inspector of factories, Delhi stating therein that the factory of management was being run without grant of required licence and sought action against the management. Consequently, the management herein had to shift its factory to an industrial area situated at Plot no. 359, Sector-8, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon under the compelling circumstances arising out of the proceedings in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 failing which the management shall be punished by the ld. Court which included imprisonment as well as huge fine. That time the workman and LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 23 other workers under the influence of Workers Union refused to join at shifted place and voluntarily abandoned their employment without any justifiable reason. The management had very promptly put up the notice dated 04.03.2017 on the factory notice board and had also intimated the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide communication dated 04.03.2017. The abovesaid notices clearly stated that the factory had been shifted to its new address from 05.03.2017 onwards and the workmen were told to report for their respective duties on 06.03.2017. Further, the workmen were informed by the management that even if the workmen reported late till lunch time, no wages will be deducted. Not only that, the management went a step forward and assured the workmen that each workman shall be paid the conveyance charges (bus fare) for the first day so that they can arrange their transportation means for future. When no workman reported for the duty the management vide separate individual notice dated 09.03.2017 each workman had also served "Notice for continuance absence from duty." The workman instead of reporting his duties at the shifted address had filed a complaint through Workers Union before Assistant Labour Commissioner, District South, New Delhi wherein false allegations regarding his illegal termination inter-alia on false ground and lock down (talabandi) of management have been levelled. Actually, the services of workman were never terminated by the management. Pursuant to the above-said complaint, Labour Inspector namely Mr. Sunil Kumar visited the old factory premises at Delhi (the factory had already been shifted to Manesar w.e.f. 06.03.2017) LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 24 and served a notice to the security guard Mr. Jitender who was present there alleging the termination of the workers etc. by the management. The Labour Inspector also recorded the statement of the said security guard to the effect that the factory premises had already been shifted to Manesar, Gurgaon. The Inspector also took the pictures of the notice board through his mobile. In compliance with the notice dated 08.03.2017, the management sent its reply along with certain records and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2017. In the said reply, it was reported that none of the worker had reported to the shifted address of the factory w.e.f. 06.03.2017. On 17.03.2017 conciliation proceedings were held and at the outset, the conciliation officer asked the management to make payment of dues of the workers. On that day during the conciliation proceedings on asking of the conciliation officer about their willingness to Join duty at the shifted premises, all the workers clearly refused to join the duty at the new address on their personal grounds. Hence, the management offered full and final payment to all its workman which was denied by them under the influence of the workers union. The management issued a final notice dated 25.03.2017 to workers by speed-post thereby requesting them to join their duty at the new place immediately but all in vain. The management paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- to each worker (wherever the wages were due above 5000/-) and the entire balance amount had been paid on 03.04.2017 against the wages for the month of February, 2017. He also deposed that the management had not terminated the services of the workman but the workman failed to join duty LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 25 at the shifted address at their own, hence, no cause of action arose to file this present Statement of Claim.
It is to note here that as per Statement of Claim, the management on 06.03.2017, in order to escape from its liability of giving wages as per minimum wages declared by the Delhi Government vide notification dated 03.03.2017, without giving any notice, without making any payment had illegally terminated the services of the workman and locked down its institution and shifted with all his belongings / assets to Plot No. 50, Gopal Pahari, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Since then it has been running its business there.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that as per the testimony of WW1/workman, due to repeated demands of legal facilities like bonus, overtime dues, leave and minimum wages as per law and his refusal to resign, the management got furious and in order to take revenge, on 06.03.2017, the management had terminated his services without any rhyme and reason, arbitrary/illegally and unjustifiably, without issuance of any letter, show cause notice and without holding any enquiry and had shifted the company to 11, Dera Mandi Road, New Delhi with the help of goons illegally without any intimation to workman and locked the office at 09, Khasra No. 440, Village-Jaunpur, Mandi Road, New Delhi.
On the other hand, as per Written Statement and testimony of MW1-Brij Mohan, present matter is not 'retrenchment' as prescribed under Industrial Disputes Act. It is the case where the workman is not joining his duties at the 'shifted' premises despite LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 26 reminders of the management. Further, the management had to shift its factory to an Industrial area situated at Plot No. 359, Sector-8, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon in compelling circumstances arising out of the proceedings which were carried on the complaint of the workers of the management as stated before.
Here, it is said that shifting of management institution/company at another place at Gurgaon/Delhi has been admitted by the workman but the plea of the workman as per the Statement of Claim is that the management had terminated his services on 06.03.2017 and shifted its institution at Plot No. 50, Gopal Pahadi, District-Gurgaon,Haryana. Further, as per statement of claim, it has not been said by the workman that fact of shifting of management institution was not in his knowledge.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the workman relied upon Mark-A i.e. Photocopy of common Demand Notice dated 06.03.2017 and photocopy of Courier Receipt, Mark-B i.e. photocopy of demand notice dated 25.08.2018 and photocopy of courier receipt, Mark-C i.e. Photocopy of salary slip and Mark-D i.e. photocopy of ESIC card.
It is also relevant to pen down here that MW1-Brij Mohan relied upon Mark-B i.e. photocopy of alleged complaint dated 23.09.2015. Perusal of the same, it is found that it has been written by President of alleged All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd. No. 3025) to Chief Factory Inspector against the Mynah Design (management) in which it is stated, inter-alia, that the institution is running its operation without license, hence action may be taken against it and informed the same to the LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 27 Union.
MW1-Brij Mohan also relied upon Mark-C i.e. photocopy of Notice dated 04.03.2017 and deposed that the management had very promptly put up the said notice on the factory notice board and had also intimated the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner vide communication dated 04.03.2017. Perusal of the same, it is found, inter-alia that through this notice dated 04.03.2017, it has been informed to the employees that w.e.f. 05.03.2017, the factory is shifting to Plot No. 359, Sector-8, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon and all the employees were requested to report there on 06.03.2017.
MW1-Brij Mohan also relied upon Mark-D i.e. photocopy of Notice dated 09.03.2017 and deposed that when no workman reported for duty, the management vide separate individual notice dated 09.03.2017, each workman had also served 'Notice for continuance absence from duty'. Perusal of the same it is found, it was addressed to workman and it is written, inter-alia, that he had not joined the duties at Plot No. 359,, Sector-8, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon on 06.03.2017 despite asking on 04.03.2017, he was asked to join the duties by 14.03.2017 otherwise his name would be removed from the attendance register.
MW1-Brij Mohan also relied upon Mark-K i.e. photocopy of Final Notice dated 25.03.2017 and deposed that on 25.03.2017, the management issued a Final Notice to the workers by speed- post requesting them to join duty at the new place of work immediately but in vain. Perusal of the same it is found, it was addressed to workman and it is written, inter-alia, that the LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 28 management had received the notice dated 17.03.2017 in which allegation of locked out the factory had been levelled which are baseless and in fact the management had shifted the place of work as permissible under the law and proper notice was displaced on the notice board on 04.03.2017. It is also written that earlier letter dated 09.03.2017, the workman was given an opportunity to join the management institution at Plot No. 359,, Sector-8, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon as per notification dated 04.03.2017 and he was directed to report on duty immediately after receipt of the this notice.
It is worthy to note here that as per the Statement of Claim, the management in order to escape from its liability of giving wages as per Minimum wages declared by the Delhi Govt. vide notification dated 03.03.2017, had illegally terminated his services on 06.03.2017 and locked down its institution and shifted it to Plot No. 50, Gopal Pahari, Distt-Gurgaon, Haryana but as per the testimony of WW1-Mohd. Amir, the management had terminated his services on 06.03.2017 and shifted it to 11, Dera Mandi Road, New Delhi with the help of goons illegally without the intimation to the workman and also locked the office at 9, Khasra No. 440, Village Jaunpur, Mandi Road, New Delhi.
Here, it is said that there are contradiction in plea taken by the workman regarding address of the shifting place of the management institution. As per Statement of claim, it is stated that the management had shifted at Plot No. 50, Gopal Pahari, Distt-Gurgaon, Haryana on 06.03.2017. On the other hand, as per testimony of WW1/workman, the management had shifted at 11, LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 29 Dera Mandi Road, New Delhi with the help of goons illegally.
It is very very relevant to pen down here that during the cross-examination, no suggestion has been put up to MW1-Brij Mohan that shifting of the management was not due to the compelling circumstances which arose because of the proceedings which were carried on the complaint of the workers of the management but its shifting was illegal only in order to escape its liability of giving the minimum wages as per Notification dated 03.03.2017 of Delhi State Govt. or due to statutory demands and refusal of the workman to resign.
It is also relevant to pen down here that in the Statement of the Claim, the workman has stated that the State Govt. had increased the Minimum wages vide Notification dated 03.03.2017 and in order to escape its liability of making the payment of minimum wages as per the Notification dated 03.03.2017, the management had terminated his services on 06.03.2017 without giving any notice/without paying anything and locked the management and shifted the management at Plot No. 50, Gopal Pahari, Distt-Gurgaon, Haryana. But during his testimony, WW1/workman has taken complete U-turn and took a new stand just opposite to what he has stated in the Statement of Claim. As per testimony of WW1/workman, due to repeated demands of legal facilities like bonus, overtime dues, leave and minimum wages as per law and his refusal to resign, the management got furious and in order to take revenge, on 06.03.2017, the management had terminated his services without any rhyme and LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 30 reason, arbitrary/illegally and unjustifiably, without issuance of any letter, show cause notice and without holding any enquiry and had shifted its company with the help of goons illegally without any intimation to workman and locked the office at 09, Khasra No. 440, Village-Jaunpur, Mandi Road, New Delhi.
It is worthy to note here that as per the statement of claim, the reason of alleged termination of the services of the workman is not the demand the above-said legal facilities like bonus, overtime dues, leave and minimum wages as per law and his refusal to resign as the stands taken by WW1/workman during his testimony. Furthermore, during the cross-examination, WW1/workman stated that the management did never ask resignation from him.
Here, it is said that the workman had taken a new stands in his evidence by way of affidavit. It is a well-established principle in law that a party cannot present evidence in their affidavit that goes beyond the scope of their original plaint.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in Prakash Rattan Lal Vs. Mankey Ram, 2010(21) R.C.R.(Civil) 304 as follows:
"4. The sole purpose of pleadings is to bind the parties to a stand. When the plaintiff makes certain allegations, the defendant is supposed to disclose his defence to each and every allegation specifically and state true facts to the court and once the facts are stated by both the parties, the court has to frame issues and ask the parties to lead evidence. It is settled law that the parties can lead evidence limited to their pleadings and parties while leading evidence cannot travel beyond pleadings. If the parties are allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings, then the sacrosanctity of pleadings comes to an end and the entire purpose of filing pleadings also stand LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 31 defeated. The other purpose behind this is that no party can be taken by surprise and new facts cannot be brought through evidence which have not been stated by the defendant in the written statement. The law provides a procedure for amendment of the pleadings and if there are any new facts which the party wanted to bring on record, the party can amend pleadings, but without amendment of pleadings, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings.
I am supported in this view by judgments of Supreme Court in AIR 1975 1 SCC 212; Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh wherein the Supreme Court has held that evidence adduced cannot travel beyond the pleadings. In AIR 1987 2 SCC 555; Ram Sarup Gupta by LRs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., the Supreme Court again reiterated that the evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Ram Sarup Gupta by LRs v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., AIR 1987 2 SCC 555 as follows:
"It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise."
13. Thus, it is settled law that the evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings and that in the absence of pleadings, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. Since in the present case, the workman has nowhere pleaded in his Statement LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 32 of claim regarding fact that due to statutory demand and his refusal to give resignation, the management had terminated his services, therefore, new facts adduced by the workman during his testimony which in view of the settled law, cannot be considered in the absence of pleadings.
It is very very important to note here that from the bare reading of Reference under reply, it is quite clear that the dispute between the workman and the management is of illegal termination in garb of transfer. But as per the present statement of claim, the reason of alleged termination is not at all on the ground of transfer but the reason of alleged termination of the services of the workman is pleaded that the management in order to escape from its liability of giving wages as per Minimum wages declared by the Delhi Govt. vide notification dated 03.03.2017, had illegally terminated his services on 06.03.2017. Further, so far as the testimony of WW1/workman regarding the reason of his illegal termination is concerned, the Court has already given its opinion that the evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings and that in the absence of pleadings, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. Here, it is also said that the workman with the different stage of the matter, has changed his stands regarding his alleged illegal termination, hence it is view of the Court that his sayings are not reliable with respect to his alleged termination.
It is to note here that the workman has relied upon Mark-A i.e. Photocopy of common Demand Notice dated 06.03.2017 and LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 33 photocopy of Courier Receipt, Mark-B i.e. photocopy of demand notice dated 25.08.2018 and photocopy of courier receipt, Mark- C i.e. Photocopy of salary slip and Mark-D i.e. photocopy of ESIC card.
The Court is of view that the above-said documents do not prove the allegation of alleged termination of the services of the workman by the management on 06.03.2017. Hence, the workman has failed to prove the reasons of his alleged termination.
At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce the definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 2 (oo) of Industrial Disputes Act which reads as follows:
(oo) " retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include--
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 34 expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-
health;]
14. In view of the above-said discussion, considered view of the Court is that the present case of the workman does not fall within the definition of retrenchment as he himself has failed to prove that his services has been terminated by the management as alleged.
Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management and issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
15. RELIEF:
In view of the above observations, the present claim is dismissed. A copy of this award be sent to the Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of District/Area concerned for publication as per rules. File be consigned to the LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 35 Digitally Record Room after due compliance. signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2025.06.06 17:06:14 +0530 Announced in the open Court (REKHA) th on 6 June, 2025 Presiding Officer Labour Court - 07 Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi LIR No. 4300/18 Mohd. Amir Vs. M/s Maynah Designs Page 36