Delhi District Court
Sh. Pramod Tiwari vs M/S Anupam Mode Wear on 17 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI T. S. KASHYAP :
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-XIX :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997)
Unique Case I.D. No. 02402C0431452004
SH. PRAMOD TIWARI
Through: Sh. R.K. Mishra, General Secretary,
Udyogik Mazdoor Union (Regd.),
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,
668, Kabool Nagar, G.T. Road, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ................................... Workman
Vs.
M/S ANUPAM MODE WEAR
X-252, Ram Nagar Market, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031. ...............................Management
Date of institution of the case : 01.03.1997
Date of reserving the award : 06.01.2011
Date of pronouncement of award : 17.01.2011
Ref No.F.24(5836)/96/Lab./3567-71, dated 17.01.1997
A W A R D (ORAL)
Having satisfied regarding existence of an industrial dispute between
the parties mentioned above, the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of
Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred by section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'), r/w Govt. of
LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 1 of 17
th
India, Ministry of Labour Notification No. S-11011/2/75/DK (IA) dated 14
April 1975, referred the present dispute to labour court No. 1 for
adjudication with the following terms of reference:
"Whether services of Sh. Pramod Kumar Tiwari have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and
what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. On service of notice of reference, the workman filed the Statement of
Claim with the prayer for passing an award in his favour and against the
management directing the management to reinstate him in service with
continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits submitting that
he was in the employment of the management since 26.02.1987 as Counter
Salesman on last drawn wages of Rs.2800/- per month. He has alleged that
the management did not provide him requisite documents and legal facilities
despite oral demands repeatedly made. He also alleged that his earned wages
for the months of September, October, November and December 1995 were
also not paid. It has been alleged that the management had taken his
signatures on blank papers/vouchers which were taken at frequent intervals
at different stages and his services were illegally and unjustifiably
terminated by the management on 05.01.1996 without any show-cause
notice alleging that the documents signed by him shall be used against him.
He has claimed that on 05.01.1996 when he went to resume duty, the
management refused to take him back in service and did not pay earned
wages for the period from September to December 1995. He demanded that
he should be given in writing but Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta, threatened to
implicate him in false case of defamation and refused to give anything in
writing. He also claimed that even bonus was also not paid to him. It has
been claimed that a complaint was made to the Assistant Labour
LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 2 of 17
Commissioner on 10.01.1996 through Union and demand legal notice dated
06.02.1996 was sent to the management through UPC and registered AD but
the management did not take him back on duty nor paid the outstanding
dues. He claims to have remained unemployed since the date of alleged
termination. Hence the claim.
3. The management has contested the claim by filing written-statement
submitting that the claimant was appointed as Helper on the Sales Counter
in the shop w.e.f. 15.10.1993 and he was paid wages @ Rs. 1800/- per
month and his last drawn wages were Rs. 2800/- per month. In the month of
October 1995, he expressed willingness to discontinue service with the
management as he was offered better job. Management persuaded him to
continue but he did not agree and on 27.10.199, he settled all his dues and
executed a receipt in token of having received his full and final account
amounting to Rs. 11,750/- in cash. Prior to 15.10.1993 he had also worked
with the management but after 27.10.1995 he ceased to be in the
employment of the management and his services were not terminated by the
management as alleged. The allegations made by the workman have been
denied and it has been submitted that he was not an employee of the
management in November 1995. It has been denied that the management
had obtained signatures of the workman on blank papers/vouchers as
alleged. The allegation of terminating service of the workman has also been
denied and it has been claimed that the workman was gainfully employed
and therefore, he was not entitled for relief of back wages as claimed nor he
is entitled for reinstatement in service.
4. Workman also filed rejoinder and on pleadings of the parties, my the
then Ld. Predecessor on 14.01.1999 framed the following issues :
LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 3 of 17
1.Whether the claimant settled all his dues against receipt and received full and final account in cash and ceased to be an employee of the management after 27.10.1995, if so, its effect?
2. As per terms of reference.
5. In support of his claim, the workman appeared as WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. WW1/A and additional affidavit Ex. WW1/B and relied on documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/17. He also examined WW2 Sh. V.S. Chauhan and WE was closed by Ld. AR.
On behalf of the management, Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta, proprietor of the management appeared in the witness box as MW1 who tendered his affidavit Ex. MW1/A relying on document Ex. MW1/A1 and photograph Mark B. MW2 Sh. Ved Prakash has appeared as MW2 who tendered the documents Ex. MW2/A to Ex. MW2/E (colly) and Sh. Dinesh Kumar appeared as MW3 who relied on documents Ex. MW3/1 and Ex. MW3/2 and ME was closed by proprietor of the management on 14.09.2010.
6. I have heard oral submissions from Ld. ARs for the management and also gone through the written-arguments filed on behalf of the workman and also gone through the record and my findings on the issues are as under :
ISSUE NO. 1.
7. The onus to prove this issue was not placed by my Ld. Predecessor on either party. However, since plea was taken by the management the onus to prove this issue ought to have been discharged by the management. On behalf of the management, MW1 through his affidavit Ex. MW1/A has testified that in October 1995, the workman wanted to leave his service but the management persuaded him to continue in the job. However, he refused and left the service on 27.10.1995 when he was paid Rs. 11,750/- in cash on LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 4 of 17 account of settlement of his dues and claims. In his cross-examination, he admits that the workman did not submit any resignation letter. MW1 had no documentary evidence to show that workman had voluntarily left his job. MW1 has denied the suggestion that he used to take the signatures of the workman on blank papers/ vouchers at the time of paying the salary. MW1 did not join conciliation proceedings. He admits that Hindi portion of document Ex. MW1/A1 was not written by the workman and voluntarily added that said portion was written by his father and thereafter, workman signed the same after reading the same. He denied the suggestion that Ex. MW1/A1 did not bear the signatures of the workman and date at portion A. He also admitted that amount of Rs. 11,750/- mentioned in the Ex. MW1/A1 was not reflected in his cash book or day book as payment made to the workman. He also admitted that Ex. MW1/A1 does not bear any number on day book or cash book entry. He claims that he had cash in hand to the tune of more than Rs. 11750/- but he cannot produce any account as the same was destroyed by termites. MW1 also claims that initially Rs. 9750/- were paid but subsequently Rs. 2000/- were also paid and fresh voucher was prepared but original voucher Ex. MW1/W1 was destroyed. MW1 further stated that he does not remember as to when Rs. 2000/- was paid to the workman. He denied the suggestion that he never paid any money to the workman and voucher Ex. MW1/W1 was forged.
On behalf of the management, it was submitted by Ld. AR that voucher Ex. MW1/A1 has been proved on record by MW1 and the workman had voluntarily left his service after receiving full and final payment but the workman deliberately denied his signatures on the voucher. On behalf of workman, it has been submitted that workman had denied having received any full and final payment, rather he has alleged that his signatures were LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 5 of 17 taken on blank paper/receipt Mark A, does not bear his signatures at point Mark 'A'. The management has not moved any application for getting the disputed signatures of the workman compared with his admitted signatures and the management's witnesses have failed to prove on record any document such as letter of resignation or any other document to prove that the workman had voluntarily left the job. MW1 has also admitted that the amount of Rs. 11750/- mentioned in Ex. MW1/A1 was not reflected by him in any cash book or day book. Even though, he claims to have maintained cash book, day book and ledger etc. MW1 has also stated that Ex. MW1/A1 does not bear any cash book entry and had taken the plea that he was having cash Rs. 11,750/- on 27.10.1995 which was paid to the workman but he failed to produce account on the ground that the same has been destroyed by termites and therefore, testimony of MW1 cannot be believed. He has failed to prove on record that the workman had received Rs. 11,750/- towards full and final settlement.
Workman through his affidavit Ex. WW1/A has testified that his services were illegally terminated by the management on 05.01.1996 and the management had taken his signatures on blank papers/ vouchers at different stages and on 05.01.1996, Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta had threatened to use the said document against the workman and he had made a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner through union on 10.01.1996. It is pertinent to mention that on complaint, Sh. B.R. Chauhan, Labour Inspector had visited the management on 22.01.1996 but management had refused to take the workman back on duty. Workman has proved his complaint Ex. WW1/1 and report of the Labour Inspector Ex. WW1/2 in support of his contention. In the cross-examination, he has denied that he worked with the management till 07.10.1995 but voluntarily added that he worked with the LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 6 of 17 management till 04.01.1996. He also denied the suggestion that he had left the job on his own on 27.10.1995 after receiving full and final payment of his dues from the management. He also denied the suggestion that after receiving Rs. 11,750/- as full and final payment of his dues on 27.10.1995, he signed voucher Mark 'A' at point 'A'. The document Ex. MW1/A does not bear name or signatures of any witness. MW1 has failed to prove on record any letter of resignation having been tendered by the workman, rather admitted that the workman did not submit any letter or resignation nor MW1 has been able to produce any documentary evidence to show that the workman had voluntarily left his job. Even though, the workman had made allegation that the management had taken his signatures on blank papers/vouchers but he has denied his signatures at point 'A' on Mark 'A' which has also been exhibited as Ex. MW1/A which clearly shows that the workman has categorically denied his signatures at point 'A' on the said document. MW1 has stated that he did not join conciliation proceedings. He has also admitted that Hindi portion of voucher Ex. MW1/A1 was not written by the workman. He voluntarily added that said portion was written by his father and thereafter it was signed by the workman. However, it does not bear signatures of MW1 or of his father. MW1 has also admitted that Ex. MW1/A1 does not bear any number of day book or cash book entry. There is contradiction in his testimony because he claims that he paid Rs. 11,750/- to the workman in cash on 27.10.1995. MW1 was confronted in the cross- examination with the document Ex. MW1/W1 which shows that amount of Rs. 9750/- was paid to the workman on same day but Ex. MW1/A1 shows that Rs. 11,750/- was paid to the workman and MW1 was asked to explain the difference to which he had stated that initially workman was paid Rs. 9750/- but was subsequently paid Rs. 2000/- and thereafter, a fresh voucher LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 7 of 17 was prepared but added that original voucher Ex. MW1/W1 was perhaps destroyed. He could not state the date when the additional some of Rs. 2000/- was paid to the workman but admittedly, Rs. 2000/- was claimed to have been paid subsequently. Therefore, it stands proved on record that Rs. 11,750/- were not paid to the workman on 27.10.1995. Since MW1 has admitted that the workman has not tendered any resignation nor the management has proved on record that there was any urgency for the workman to leave the job, it cannot be believed that the workman had any intention to leave the job on 27.10.1995 or that he had received full and final settlement amount on the said date. Since the workman has denied his signatures on the document Ex. MW1/A, it was duty of the management to make the efforts to get the disputed signatures of the workman at point A on document Ex. MW1/A1 compared but no such application had been moved on behalf of the management. Therefore, the management has failed to prove on record the document Ex. MW1/A1 to prove that workman had received Rs. 11,750/- towards full and final settlement from the management. It is pertinent to mention that in the cross-examination, MW1 has admitted that the workman worked with the management from October 1993 to 04.01.1996, as such, there was no question of workman receiving Rs. 11,750/- on 27.10.1995 towards full and final settlement. A person who performs duty upto 04.01.1996 would have no reason to tender his resignation or to accept full and final settlement payment on a prior date i.e. 27.10.1995 more than two months back. The said payment has also not been corroborated by the management by producing the cash book, day book and ledger and admittedly MW1/A1 does not bear any number of day book or cash book entry. Therefore, it is held that the management has failed to prove on record that the workman had received full and final amount in cash LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 8 of 17 and the workman did not cease to be an employee of the management after 27.10.1995. The effect thereof is that the workman continued in the employment of the management even after 27.10.1995. Issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the workman and against the management. ISSUE NO. 2:
8. The onus to prove this issue was also not placed by my Ld. Predecessor on either party. However, in terms of provisions of section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, the onus was to be discharged by the workman. Ld. AR for the workman through written-arguments has submitted that the workman had proved on record the document Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/17.
The management has admitted the relationship but has only disputed the resignation and monthly wages as claimed by the workman. However, the management has failed to produce the record despite orders from the court on the plea that the same were destroyed by termites. It was submitted that the management has not taken the said plea in reply to the application for production of record nor it was pleaded in the written-statement or affidavit filed by MW1 and therefore, the said plea cannot be believed and an adverse inference against the management deserves to be drawn that the management deliberately did not produce the summoned record because if the record was produced, it would have gone against the management. Ld. AR for the workman also submitted that the management has admitted that the workman had worked with the management even prior to 1993 but nothing has been specifically pleaded disclosing the date since when the workman was in the employment of the management and therefore, the averment made by the workman and testimony of the workman deserves to be believed. It was also submitted by Ld. AR for the workman that the management has failed to prove on record that the workman was gainfully LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 9 of 17 employed. MW2 and MW3 have failed to prove on record that the workman was gainfully employed and therefore, the workman was entitled for relief as per terms of reference.
On behalf of the management, it was submitted by Ld. AR that no adverse inference against the management can be drawn because the management has taken a plausible defence which cannot be ignored as the documents were destroyed by termites and the record was old. He also submitted that the workman had applied for DL and on the basis of said DL, he also applied for PCO which he was running and therefore, the workman was gainfully employed which is also corroborated by the fact that the workman was maintaining his family which was not possible without any source of income as he has not disclosed the income of his brother, who as per workman is maintaining his family.
Issue No. 1 above has been decided against the management and it is pertinent to note that even though the management had pleaded that the workman had received full and final settlement amount of Rs. 11,750/- from the management on 27.10.1995 but MW1 Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta, in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that the workman worked with them from October 1993 to 04.01.1996 and specifically he stated that he could not admit or deny the suggestion that from 05.01.1995 to 05.01.1996, the workman continuously worked for more than 240 days with him. Admittedly, he did not join conciliation proceedings. Vide order dated 22.05.2008, the management was directed to produce the attendance register, payment of wages register, leave register, ledger book, cash book, cash memos and day book for the year 1986 till 1996 on 07.07.2008 but on that day the documents were not produced and adjournment was prayed on behalf of the management for production of documents which was allowed LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 10 of 17 and matter was adjourned for production of documents on 12.08.2008. However, on 12.08.2008, Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta, proprietor of the management stated that he could not produce the documents as the same were not available as the same have been destroyed by termites and accordingly, his statement was recorded. In his cross-examination, MW1 has admitted that the management has no record such as attendance register etc., since the same have been destroyed by termites. He pleaded that the management had all the documents when the written-statement was filed but he came to know that the record had been destroyed by termites about 3-4 years ago but he did not remember the exact year. He also pleaded that the management was having record of the workman at the time of filing his affidavit Ex. MW1/A. He admitted that in the written-statement and in his affidavit he has not stated that the documents have been destroyed by termites and he cannot produce the document as the same are not in a position to be produced in the court. He added that several documents of the company have also been destroyed. However, He could not give the details of the documents nor pleaded that they were not legible.
It is pertinent to note here that in the reply filed by the management to the application of workman for production of documents in the court, the management has not taken any plea that the documents were destroyed by termites. As mentioned in order dated 22.05.2008, the management has pleaded that the claimant was employed as Helper w.e.f. 15.10.1993 and worked upto 27.10.1995 and he settled his full and final account. It was also submitted that the said document cannot help in the adjudication of terms of reference and the application was filed just to harass the management. The affidavit of MW1 Ex. MW1/A was filed in the court on 05.02.2007 but the contention that the documents were destroyed by termites was not made in LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 11 of 17 the said affidavit of MW1. MW1 was cross-examined on 01.09.2008 and according to MW1 the documents were destroyed by the termites about 3-4 years ago and if the period is computed prior to 01.09.2008 that means the documents were destroyed between 01.09.2004 to 01.09.2005 and if the documents have been destroyed by termites at that stage then the management could have submitted before my Ld. Predecessor at the time of disposal of the application of the workman for production of record dated 21.08.2007 that the said documents were already destroyed by the termites but no such plea that documents were already destroyed by termites was taken. Therefore, it is established on record that the management has deliberately not produced the record and has taken a false plea which cannot be believed. MW1 in his cross-examination has stated that Sh. Pramod Tiwari did not work with the management prior to 1993, although in the written-statement filed on behalf of the management, the management has pleaded that Sh. Pramod Tiwari was appointed as Helper on sales counter in the shop w.e.f. 15.10.1993 @ Rs. 1800/- per month and his last drawn salary was Rs. 2800/- per month and he worked till 27.10.1995 when he received full and final payment of Rs. 11,750/- in cash but it has been added that prior to 15.10.1993, also he had worked with the management without specifying the date and period. Therefore, the claim of the workman that he was employee of the management since 26.02.1987 deserves to be believed. The workman has received inland letter Ex. WW1/1 dated 03.10.1992 at the management's address besides other correspondence. MW1 has admitted that he does not have any documentary evidence of any break in service by the management. MW1 also admitted that there is no document to show that the workman was appointed as Helper. He admits that he did not prepare any LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 12 of 17 wages register or attendance register and he has also failed to specify the record which was destroyed by termites and therefore, the plea taken by MW1 that the management could not produce the record as per direction of the court is patently false and cannot be believed. As such, an adverse inference against the management deserves to be drawn that the management has failed to produce the record deliberately by taking false plea and if the management had produced the record as per direction, the contention of the workman would have been corroborated and proved. Therefore, it is held that the workman was in the employment of the management since 26.02.1987 as Counter Salesman on last drawn wages of Rs. 2800/- per month. Issue No. 1 above has been decided in favour of the workman and against the management as the management had pleaded that the workman had received full and final settlement amount on 27.10.1995 and therefore, there was no reason for the workman to be out of employment of the management on said date. The workman has specifically alleged that he was refused duty by proprietor of the management Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta on 05.01.1996 withholding his earned wages for the months from September to December 1995 and he had made a complaint to Assistant Labour Commissioner and also sent demand legal notice but the management did not respond. MW1 has admitted that he did not join conciliation proceedings. He also does not know if any reply before the conciliation officer was filed or not. Therefore, it is apparent from record that he was aware of the proceedings pending before conciliation officer but deliberately did not join conciliation proceedings. No suggestion was given to the workman that demand legal notice Ex. WW1/3 was not sent to the management. Workman has also proved on record the postal receipt Ex. WW1/4, UPC Ex. WW1/5 and registered AD Ex. WW1/6. No suggestion LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 13 of 17 was given to the workman that these receipts and AD Card did not bear correct address of the management and therefore, as per section 27 of General Clauses Act, the said notices are deemed to have been served on the management who has not bothered even to reply to the demand legal notice taking the plea that no such notice was received. Therefore, it is held that the management was fully aware of the grievances of the workman on receipt of the demand legal notice which was not replied deliberately. There is no plea on behalf of the management that service of the workman were terminated by way of punishment in consequence of disciplinary action for charge of any misconduct and therefore, workman who had completed more than one year service with the management was not liable to be terminated. The management has failed to prove on record that the workman had received full and final payment of Rs. 11,750/- on 27.10.1995 and therefore, testimony of workman deserves to be believed. It is held that services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management.
On behalf of the management, MW2 Sh. Ved Prakash and MW3 Sh. Dinesh Kumar have been examined to prove that the workman was gainfully employed. It has been submitted by Ld. AR for the management that the workman had applied for Driving Licence (DL) and MW2 has proved the application Ex. MW2/A and photocopy of DL Ex. MW2/B. He has also proved on record the customer application form for issue of mobile No. Ex. MW2/C followed by activation slip Ex. MW2/D. It was submitted that the workman applied for PCO vide agreement Ex. MW2/E and the relevant documents have been proved by MW2 and MW3 from which it is proved on record that the workman was running a PCO and was gainfully employed and therefore, he was not entitled for reinstatement in service or for any payment.
LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 14 of 17 However, Ld. AR for the workman has submitted that MW2 Sh. Ved Prakash in his cross-examination has admitted that Mr. Gopal Murthy, Branch Manager for Crown Worldwide Movers Pvt. Ltd. had sent letter dated 12.08.2005 and he could not say whether the true copy was signed by comparing the original or not and MW2 has admitted that original of document Ex. MW2/C, D and E have been destroyed during the flood in Bombay in the year July 2005 and therefore, these documents are not covered u/s. 66 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be read in evidence. MW2 has also admitted that he could not say whether any publication regarding loss of documents during flood was got issued by the company or not. He also admitted that documents Ex. MW2/A and B show the name of applicant as Bihari Tiwari. He could not say whether the claimant herein and the applicant shown in the documents filed by him is the same person or not. He could also not identify the signatures of applicant on the documents Ex. MW2/A to Ex. MW2/E as signatures were not put in his presence.
Similarly, MW3 Sh. Dinesh Kumar has stated that the document Ex. MW3/2 is the copy of document on the basis of which DL was issued to Mr. Pramod Tiwari and the original document was admittedly destroyed and he has no documentary record to show that the record pertaining to issue of DL to Pramod Tiwari was destroyed whereas, the workman has denied that he had applied for DL or for issue of mobile connection and PCO. Even though, MW2 and MW3 have failed to prove on record the applications of the workman for issue of DL and for issue of PCO licence respectively, the question remains whether the workman was gainfully employed or not. The management has failed to prove on record that the workman was running PCO as on date or had run it previously to prove that workman was earning from such PCO. The onus to prove that the workman was not gainfully LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 15 of 17 employed was on the workman but it appears that he had also deliberately concealed the source of his subsistence. Cross-examination of workman shows that he had denied the suggestion that he opened PCO/STD booth of Reliance Communication Infrastructure. He also denied that the telephone number/mobile number were issued in his name. He has specifically denied that he was running the shop on the ground floor of his house as a general merchant shop and as PCO booth. He claims that he had been living in his village Rasulpur, Post Gursahaiganj, Distt. Kannauj, U.P. but he could not tell the number of days and months when he resided in his village. He has four children and as on 11.07.2005, their age was 16, 12, 7 and 4 years out th of whom 3 daughters were school going and he had planned to send the 4 child in Govt. School. His daughters were studying in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Khajoori Khas, Delhi and eldest daughter was studying in MCD School. He denied the suggestion that he was maintaining his family and voluntarily added that his elder brother was maintaining his family. However, he could not disclose the name of firm in which his brother was working. He admits that his brother does not have any technical qualification, although, his brother was residing in Delhi in the same house in which he was residing but he did not place on record any document to show that his brother was residing with him or that his brother was working and if so what was the income of his brother. Unless income of his brother was such that he could have maintained not only his own family but also could support the family of workman, it cannot be believed that family of the workman was maintained by his brother. It is also pertinent to mention that workman denied the suggestion that he was earning Rs. 8000/- to 9000/- but he had not disclosed source of his income for his sustenance. It cannot be believed that he could have maintained his family consisting of 4 LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 16 of 17 children who are school going with the help of his brother alone unless he himself has any source of income. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the workman was not having any source of income. It is also pertinent to mention here that the workman is also responsible to a great extent for delay and disposal of the present claim as several avoidable adjournments were taken on his behalf.
Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion, in my considered view, the interest of justice shall be met if the management is directed to reinstate the workman with back wages @ 30% on last drawn salary with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Accordingly, management is directed to reinstate the workman back in service with back wages @ 30% of last drawn wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits within 30 days from the date of publication of this award failing which management shall have to pay interest @ 12% on the outstanding dues till the date of actual payment.
9. Reference is answered accordingly. Copy of award be sent for publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 17th Day of January, 2011.
(T. S. KASHYAP)
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-XIX
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
LIR No. 350/08 (Old No. I.D. 239/1997) page 17 of 17