Delhi District Court
Permanent Address Of The vs M/S G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. ... on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING
OFFICER LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN :-
LC No. 42/2016
Sh. Shri Babu
S/o Sh. Thakuri Prasad
R/o House No. 285, Gali No. 4 B,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.
(The requisite details of the workman in compliance to judgment
of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Director General of
Works (CPWD) Vs. Laljeet Yadav & Ors. W.P.(C) No.
2540/2021, DOD 16.07.2021 are as follows:
Permanent Address of the Workman
House No. 285, Gali No. 4 B, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.
Present Address of the Workman:
House No. 285, Gali No. 4 B, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.
Name and Mobile Number of A.R for Workman:
Sh. Ajit Singh, Authorised Representative
Ch. No. B-61, B.G.S Block, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Details of one of immediate family member of the Workman
Details not furnished.
AADHAR Card Number of workman
Details not furnished. .....Workman
VERSUS
M/s G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.
C-16, Community Centre, Janakpuri,
New Delhi.
.....Management
Date of Institution : 27.08.2014
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 of 21.
Date of Arguments : 30.07.2022
Date of Award : 30.07.2022
AWARD
1. Workman has filed the present direct claim against
the management with the prayer that Award may kindly be
passed in favour of the workman and against the
management for reinstatement of workman in service with
continuity of service and all consequential benefits and for
full back wages along with interest.
2. The brief facts of the case of the workman as stated
in the statement claim is that he joined services with the
management for the post of Head Guard since 02.01.1997
and his last drawn wages were Rs. 7,833/-. It is stated that
the management was not extending benefits like PF, ESI to
the workman and on 16.06.2013, the management has not
given work to the workman. It is further stated that the
workman approached the Labour Commissioner and
Labour Inspector also send notice to the management. It is
further stated that statement of claim also filed before the
Conciliation Officer but the Conciliation proceedings
failed.
3. Notice of statement of claim was sent to the
management. Management filed written statement stating
that claimant has admittedly been working as Head Guard
and thus not a workman under Section 2 (s) of Industrial
Dispute Act and the job does not fall under the category of
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2 of 21.
manual unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisor in nature and therefore the same is liable to be
dismissed. It is further stated that the workman joined the
company on 02.01.1997 and workman was sleeping on
duty on 07.05.1997, 05.10.1998 and 21.03.2001 for which
letters dated 08.05.1997, 05.10.1998 and 21.03.2001 were
issued. It is further stated that the workman remained
absent starting from 01.05.2001 to 05.05.2001
unauthorized without prior permission for which he was
issued letter dated 05.05.2001. It is further stated that the
workman started absenting from his duty w.e.f 17.06.2013
without any prior approval of management. It is further
stated that the workman was issued deployment order
dated 2.08.2013 but he refused to accept the same. It is
further stated that management issued cheque dated
19.12.2013 for Rs. 36,102/- for full and final settlement
vide letter dated 13.02.2014. It is further stated that the
claimant along with other employees threatened senior
officials to kill and used abusive language for which FIR
No. 89 dated 01.02.2014 under Section 188/342/506/34
IPC was registered with PS Janakpuri. It is prayed that the
claim of the workman be dismissed.
4. From the pleadings of the parties the following
issues were framed on 02.11.2015 :
(1) Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined
under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act? OPM
(2) Whether the nature of job of the workman was
supervisor capacity as claimed by the management? OPM
(3) Whether the workman is guilty of threatening senior
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 3 of 21.
officers to kill and use of abusive language against the
senior officers, if so, its effect? OPM
(4) Whether the services of the workman were terminated
illegally and unjustifiably by the management? OPW
(5) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed
in the statement of claim? OPW
(6) Relief.
5. Workman examined himself as WW-1 and filed his
evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the same as
Ex.WW1/A. In his evidenciary affidavit the workman has
reiterated the contents of the statement of claim and relied
upon the documents as under :
(1) Ex.WW1/1 is copy of identity card.
(2) Ex.WW1/2 is copy of pay slip of March, 2013.
(3) Ex.WW1/3 is OPD slip issued by ESI Hospital.
(4) Ex.WW1/4 is copy of complaint dt. 30.07.13.
(5) Ex.WW1/5 is copy of application dated 01.10.13
(6) Ex.WW1/6 is copy of application dt. 30.10.13.
(7) Ex.WW1/7 is copy of demand notice.
(8) Ex.WW1/8 is copy of postal receipt.
(9) Ex.WW1/9 is copy of complaint before ALC.
(10) Ex.WW1/10 is report of Labour Inspector.
(11) Ex.WW1/11 is copy of statement of claim filed
before Assistant Labour Commissioner.
(12) Ex.WW1/12 is copy of letter dated 26.02.14.
(13.) Ex.WW1/13 is failure report given by ALC.
WW-1 has been cross examined by A.R for
management and during his cross examination WW1
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 4 of 21.
deposed as under :
"It is correct that I was working with the
management as a Head Guard. I was appointed by the
management on 01.01.1997 as the guard. At the time of
my joining with the management, the patrolling
Supervisor, Zonal Inspector, Operation Manager and
Branch Manager used to direct me for duty at the place. It
is correct that the Head Guard is higher than guard. The
management had issued me appointment letter after seven
years of my employment. ................................... It is
correct that FIR bearing No. 89/2014 under Section
188/342/506/34 IPC was registered against me at PS
Janakpuri on 01.02.2014. (Vol. The said FIR was
registered against me after the termination). ..................
It is correct that I have received the cheque bearing No.
387291 dated 19.12.2013 for the amount of Rs. 36,102/-
Ex.WW1/M3 under the registered AD. (Vol. As soon as I
received the said cheque, I returned the same ot the
management and then only I came to know that my
services have been terminated by the management). It is
correct that the address and employment code mentioned
on the letter dated 13.02.2014 towards the Gratuity
Cheque/Full and Final belongs to me. Said letter is
Ex.WW1/M4.
At this stage A.R for management has shown the
documents i.e photocopies of letter dated 21.08.2013 and
30.08.2013 regarding the continuous unauthorised
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 5 of 21.
absence of workman and asked as under :-
Ques. Whether the said letter dated 21.08.2013 &
30.08.2013 were received by you or not?
Ans. The said letters were not received by me.
It is correct that I had given the apology letter dated
14.08.2013 Ex.WW1/M5 to the management and same
bears my signatures at point A. (Vol. I had written the said
letter only on the instructions of the management,
however, there was no fault on my part). It is correct that I
was getting only ESI Facility. It is correct that I have
received the contract of employment at the time of joining
the services of management. Again said, the contract of
employment was received by me after the ten years of
joining of my service with the management".
6. On 04.12.2018, A.R for workman closed workman
evidence.
7. The management has also examined Shri
Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia as MW-1, who tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW-1/A bearing his
signature at point A and B. He has relied upon the
documents as under :
(1) Ex.MW1/1 is copy of application for
employment dated 21.12.1996.
(2) Ex.MW1/7 is warning letter dated 21.08.2013.
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 6 of 21.
(3) Ex.WW1/8 is warning letter dated 30.08.2013.
(4) Ex.WW1/9 is letter of termination.
(5) Ex.WW1/10 is copy of full & final settlement.
(6) Ex.WW1/11 is copy of cheque.
(7) Mark A is deployment dated 02.08.2013.
MW 1 has been cross examined by A.R for
workman. During his cross examination MW1 has
deposed as under "
"I am working with the management since the year
2000. It is correct that I have not filed any document on
record to show that the management has authorised me to
depose in the present matter. It is correct that the nature
of work of the workman was performing duty as a guard. It
is correct that the management did not give any
administrative or supervisory power to the workman as
the workman used to work as guard. I do not remember
the date when the workman lastly worked with the
management. It is available on record. It is correct that
the workman was not performing his duty in the
supervisory capacity. It is correct that the workman never
given any threat or used abusive language to its senior
officers in my present. I can not tell the exact date when
the workman had given the threat to its senior officer.
.................. It is correct that I have not filed any
document on record to show that the documents Ex.MW1/1
to Ex.MW1/4 were delivered at the workman address. Vol.
The management had filed speed post receipts of the said
documents. It is correct that the management had not
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 7 of 21.
conducted the domestic enquiry against the workman. It is
correct that the workman had not given any resignation
letter to the management. Vol. The management had sent
three absconding letters to the workman. ................. It is
correct that the workman had given application to the
management which is Ex.WW1/5 for joining duty. Vol.
Workman was on medical leave. The address on
documents Ex.WW1/7 is correct address. .............. I do
not know at present where the workman is working. At
present, the management is not ready to take back the
workman on duty".
8. I have heard Authorised Representative of workman
and management and carefully gone through the record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
(1) Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined
under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act? OPM
(2) Whether the nature of job of the workman was
supervisor capacity as claimed by the management? OPM
9. Above two issues are interconnected and shall be
disposed of together. Onus to prove these issues was upon
the management. The workman has stated in his cross
examination (relevant portion only):
"It is correct that I was working with the
management as a Head Guard. I was appointed by the
management on 01.01.1997 as the guard. At the time of
my joining with the management, the patrolling
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 21.
Supervisor, Zonal Inspector, Operation Manager and
Branch Manager used to direct me for duty at the place. It
is correct that the Head Guard is higher than guard".
10. Management has not filed any appointment
letter/rules showing the terms and conditions that the
workman used to work as supervisor/Incharge and used to
supervise six workers working under him.
11. Definition of "workman", is provided under Sec.
2(s) of the Act is as under:
"Workman" is any person (including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do any manual, un-
skilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or su-
pervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms
of employment be express or implied and for the
purposes of any proceedings under this act in rela-
tion to an industrial dispute, includes any such per-
son who has been dismissed, discharged or re-
trenched in connection with, or as a consequence of,
that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or re-
trenchment has led to that dispute.
12. The concept of workman is central to the concept of
an industrial dispute as an industrial dispute can be raised
either by a "workman" or an "employer." Since the Indus-
trial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act") is a piece of beneficial
legislation, the courts have enlarged the scope and applica-
bility of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term
"workman."Section 2(s) defines workman as any person
(including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do
any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, cleri-
cal or supervisory work, for hire or reward, terms of em-
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 9 of 21.
ployment be express or implied and includes any such per-
son who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of dispute.
13. A person working in purely managerial and/or su-
pervisory capacity does not fall within the definition of
workman under ID Act. However, when a person performs
multifarious functions, the nature of the main function per-
formed by the person has to be considered to determine if
the person is a "workman." The designation of a person is
not a conclusive factor in determining the nature of work.
14. Even if a person is designated as supervisor, the em-
ployer has to prove that his work and his duties were in na-
ture of a supervisor. (Delta Jute & Industries Ltd. Staff As-
sociation and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors
[2015(145)FLR105])
15. The emphasis really is to exclude those persons who
are performing mainly managerial work and are employed
in supervisory capacity i.e. evaluating the work of their
subordinates. A managerial work includes powers and du-
ties related to hiring and firing of new employees, grant of
leave to employees and actual participation in the policy of
the business. The managerial functions may not be per-
formed as a consequence of a written contract but may be
implied from the powers vested in a person or the nature of
his duties. A mere leader of a team who makes checks and
forwards it to seniors for consideration cannot be said to be
covered within the exception. Further, a supervisor earn-
ing less than 6,500/- may also raise an industrial dispute
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 10 of 21.
for an increment in wages which may eventually exclude
him from the definition of workman. (The Workmen v.
Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors 1972 SCR 1373).
16. The emphasis is laid on the nature of duties and
powers conferred on an employee rather than the designa-
tion. As per Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR (1958) SC 358); Devinder Singh v Municipal Coun-
cil, (2011) 6 SCC 584 ; John Joseph Khokar v. Bhadange
B. S. & ors 1998 (1) LLJ 447 (Bom); Kirloskar Brothers
Ltd. v. Respondent: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Delhi and Anr. [1977(34)FLR206]; the factors which should be considered are:
1. whether there is a Master Servant relationship;
2. when a person is performing various functions which overlap in their characteristics, the nature of main function for which the claimant is employed should be considered;
3. work is either manual, skilled, unskilled, technical oper-
ational, clerical or supervisory in nature, the mere fact that it does not fall within the exception would not render a person to be workman.
17. It has been held in Devinder Singh v Municipal Council, (2011) 6 SCC 584;
"13. The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of em- ployment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 11 of 21.
15. Whenever an employer challenges the main- tainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or cleri- cal work in an industry. Once the test of em- ployment for hire or reward for doing the speci- fied type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of `workman'."
18. As far as the responsibilities as a group leader is concerned it has been held in Arkal Govind Raj Rao vs Ciba Geigy Of India Ltd. {1985 AIR 985, 1985 SCR Supl.
(1) 282} "...........While it is true that the appellant was working as Group Leader and, therefore, over and above his work be supervised the work of persons working in his group, it is erroneous also to draw the inference that his duties became mainly super-
visory.
19. The definition of the expression workman herein be-
fore extracted clearly shows that the person concerned would not cease to be a workman if he performs some su- pervisory duties but he must be a person who must be en- gaged in a supervisory capacity. Even as a Group Leader of Group II, the evidence produced would show that pri- marily he continued to work and perform the same duties which have been found to be clerical but along with others in the group he also incidentally looked after the work of other members of the group who were only two in num- ber...."
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 12 of 21.
20. From the evidence, it has nowhere come in the evidence of the management that apart from mere designation, what supervisory work was done by the work- man. No doubt the contention of A.R for workman that the workman had no power either to terminate or recruit the workers and as such he was not a supervisor is not well found as it is not only this particular duty which estab- lishes the character or functional area of the particular em- ployee and further the power of recruiting or terminating generally does not lie in the hands of Head Guard as they have different role to play and such powers of terminating/appointing has to rest with the higher authori- ties of the management only and, therefore, Head Guard can not equate himself with the designation of some pro- moters or Managing Director but even if that contention of the A.R for workman is not well found yet the manage- ment has to bring some sort of evidence by which it can get its contention appreciated that the workman was super- vising particular area, a particular job or a particular wing in the management itself. Therefore, keeping in view the admitted proposition of facts, this court is of the opinion that irrespective of the designation of the workman as Head Guard, he was discharging the duty of simple worker and is covered within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D Act.
21. The test that one must employ in such a case is what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties for which the person whose status is under enquiry was em- ployed. A few extra duties would hardly be relevant to de- LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 13 of 21.
termine his status. The words like managerial or supervi- sory have to be understood in their proper connotation and their mere use should not detract from the truth.
22. In view of the facts of the case and the citations, the issue no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the claimant Sh. Shri Babu and against the managements herein. The workman Shri Babu is hereby held to be workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act.
23. Issue No. (3) Whether the workman is guilty of threatening senior officers to kill and use of abusive language against the senior officers, if so, its effect? OPM
24. The onus to prove this issue was on the management. No evidence has been led by the management on this issue. MW 1 deposed during this cross examination as under :
"It is correct that the workman never given any threaten or used abusive language to its senior officers in my present. I can not tell the exact date when the workman had given the threat to its senior officer. I do not know whether the management has filed any police complaint against the workman or not"
25. Merely bald averments are not sufficient to prove the contentions made by the management that workman is guilty of threatening senior officers to kill and use of abusive language against the senior officers. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
26. Issue No. (4) Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 14 of 21.
management? OPW Issue No. (5) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim? OPW
27. Onus to prove these issues is on the workman. Both the issues are taken together. The case of the workman is that he joined services with the management for the post of Head Guard since 02.01.1997 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 7,833/-. It is stated that the management was not extending benefits like PF, ESI to the workman and on 16.06.2013, the management has not given work to the workman. It is further stated that the workman approached the Labour Commissioner and Labour Inspector also send notice to the management. It is further stated that statement of claim also filed before the Conciliation Officer but the Conciliation proceedings failed.
28. Per contra the management taken the stand that workman joined the company on 02.01.1997 and workman was sleeping on duty on 07.05.1997, 05.10.1998 and 21.03.2001 for which letters dated 08.05.1997, 05.10.1998 and 21.03.2001 were issued. It is further stated that the workman remained absent starting from 01.05.2001 to 05.05.2001 unauthorized without prior permission for which he was issued letter dated 05.05.2001. It is further stated that the workman started absenting from his duty w.e.f 17.06.2013 without any prior approval of management. It is further stated that the workman was issued deployment order dated 2.08.2013 but he refused to accept the same. It is further stated that management issued cheque dated 19.12.2013 for Rs. 36,102/- for full LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 15 of 21.
and final settlement vide letter dated 13.02.2014. It is further stated that the claimant along with other employees threatened senior officials to kill and used abusive language for which FIR No. 89 dated 01.02.2014 under Section 188/342/506/34 IPC was registered with PS Janakpuri.
29. It is apparent from above narration of facts that relationship of employee and employer is not disputed. It is also an admitted fact that workman was not performing his duty with honesty and integrity and was sleeping on duty are no longer in service of management for which letters were issued to him. It is also stated that the workman remained unauthorized absent without prior permission and were issued letters.
30. As far as the unauthorized absence of the workman is concerned the workman has been able to show that he was terminated on 16.06.2013. No further step by way of enquiry was taken by the management. There is no document proved on record placed by the management to show that workman was issued any charge sheet for non joining his duties or subsequent enquiry was made against him. Merely bald averments are not sufficient to prove the contentions by the management that workman had stopped to come to the services of management. MW 1 Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia has been cross examined by A.R for workman and in his cross examination MW 1 has deposed as under :
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 16 of 21.
"It is correct that the management had not conducted the domestic enquiry against the workman. It is correct that the workman had not given any resignation letter to the management. Vol. The management had sent three absconding letters to the workman. It is correct that the workman had given application to the management which is Ex.WW1/5 for joining duty. Vol. Workman was on medical leave".
31. The management admitted the employment of workman. No inquiry has been made by the management in the matter as well. It is settled that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to justify the action before the Labour Court by leading evidence before it. There is no cross examination by the management on the point as to whether there is any procedure prevailing in the management of taking leave or whenever any workman would ask for any leave then he has to apply for said leave in writing. Further, if the workman was absent, then what action has been taken by the management against the workman.
32. Further, A.R for workman has relied upon the judgment titled as G.T. Lad and others Vs. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 582 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the law regarding the concept of 'abandonment', wherein it has been held that abandonment being not a temporary absence but being a total and complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. Admittedly, the said LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 17 of 21.
inference i.e. of the workman having allegedly abandoned his employment with the management on the part of the management could not have been arrived at without holding an enquiry in this regard and affording an opportunity to the alleged delinquent employee/workman of being heard. Therefore, the adverse inference is required to be taken against the management. Moreover, management admitted in the cross examination of MW1 that management had not conducted the domestic enquiry against the workman and the workman had not given any resignation letter to the management. MW 1 also admitted in his cross examination that workman had given application to the management which is Ex.WW1/5 for joining duty.
33. Admittedly, the workman was working with the management since 02.01.1997 and was working since long. Workman has proved the letter dated 01.10.2013 Ex.WW1/5, whereby he demanded reinstatement. Workman had sent demand notice dated 10.01.2014 and workman also filed complaint before Labour department. Thus there is not big gap in absence and filing the case seeking reinstatement. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the conduct of workman that he had intention to permanently left the job.
34. So far as judgment relied upon by the management is concerned i.e. Diamond Toys Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Toofani Ram dated 07.02.2007 passed by Hon'ble High Court and same is not applicable in the present case. As from the judgment, it is evident that Hon'ble High Court itself has LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 18 of 21.
observed that "the workman is free to leave the service at moment as he gets better job but in the present case, the workman has already completed 9 year as per own admission of management and it would unlikely that he would get better opportunity to leave the job without settling his account as lot of sum would have been accumulated on account of Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. due to long service. Therefore, in present case considering the long tenure of service, the management should have conducted enquiry against workman, even if workman was voluntarily absent from duty. Hence, termination of workman without enquiry was illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of workman and against the management.
RELIEF :
35. In view of the findings recorded above that the management terminated services illegally without complying with the conditions of Industrial Dispute Act, this Court finds that workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity in service and other consequential benefits. Workman has testified in his affidavit that ever since termination of his service, he has not been able to get any employment. Management has not led any evidence to suggest that workman gainfully got employed anywhere else. As to what is to be taken into consideration while granting back wages, in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalya (D.ED) & Ors. Passed in Civil appeal no. 6767 of 2013 dated 12.08.2013, Hon'ble Apex Court LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 19 of 21.
has observed as under:-
"The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person , who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 20 of 21.
of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments".
36. Accordingly the reference is answered in favour of the workman/claimant and workman is held entitled for reinstatement to the post he was working on the date of termination with 50% back wages on his last drawn wages or minimum wages whichever is higher w.e.f 16.06.2013 i.e date of termination of workman upto the date of award, as workman work for around 16 years and has spent considerable period with the management therefore, he is also entitled for other consequential benefits. Accordingly the reference is answered in favour of the workman/claimant. Management is directed to pay the amount accrued in favour of claimant within three months from the date of publication of award. If the management would fail to pay the amount within the time stipulated, the accrued amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made. Award is passed accordingly. Reference is answered accordingly. Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC. Copy of the Award be also sent delivered to the concerned department through electronic mode or through Dak. File be consigned to record room after due Digitally compliance. signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Announced in the open court. KUMAR Date:
2022.08.24 10:51:31 Dated : July 30, 2022. +0530 (Mukesh Kumar) Presiding Officer Labour Court Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi.
LC No. 42/16, Shri Babu Vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 21 of 21.