Delhi District Court
Between The vs The on 26 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMARII, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0044022008
ID No. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new)
Date of institution 17.01.2008
Date of receiving of present case by way of transfer 09.07.2014
Date of Award 26.09.2015
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Pannalal S/o Sh. Shri Gulablal trough All India General Mazdoor Trade Union
(Regd.) AITUC, Address: 170, Balmukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New
Delhi19.
AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s Shahi Exports, F88 Okhla Phase1, New Delhi20 through its
proprietor/partner.
A W A R D
1 By this award I shall dispose off statement of claim of the workman as filed by him
directly before this court against the management under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
2 The case of the workman is that he had been working with the management since
11.09.2006 as a 'Tailor' and his last drawn salary was Rs.3940/ per month. The workman
had been performing his duties with hard labour and honesty but the management has
given the designation to him only for showing as he was not given any power in the
establishment. The management also used to take field work from him. It is further stated
ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 1/10
that the workman had not afforded any chance of complaint during his service tenure, nor
there was any charge against him but despite that the management had not been providing
any legal facilities to the workman like weekly and yearly leave, double overtime,
increment, conveyance allowance, HRA, leave book and bonus etc. and even identity
card, appointment letter and attendance card were not provided to him and when the
workman started demanding these facilities from the management, the management
started misbehaving with him. It is further stated that since the management had deprived
the workman of legal facilities as such the workman become the member of the Union
and filed his dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner against the management
for not providing legal facilities due to which the management got annoyed and thereafter
the management sent a notice to the workman thereby terminating his services which was
based on baseless facts. It is further stated that the management had lodged a false
compliant against some workers in collision with the concerned police. It is further stated
that when the workman demanded aforesaid legal facilities the management got annoyed
and terminated the services of the workman on 29.12.2007 without issuing any charge
sheet and without paying any compensation. The management also obtained his
signatures forcibly on blank papers and vouchers at that time and also withheld his earned
wages w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to 28.12.2007 and in this way the management has violated the
provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further stated that the
workman sent a demand notice to the management through his union on 01.01.2008 by
registered AD/speed post which was duly received by the management but no response
was given by the management to the said demand notice nor the workman was reinstated
in service. It is further stated that the workman filed a written complaint against the
management to Regional Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and upon
the complaint of the workman the Labour Inspector visited the premises of the
ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 2/10
management to reinstate the workman in service and also to pay his legal dues but despite
best efforts of the Labour Inspector the management flatly refused to reinstate the
workman in service and to pay any legal dues. It is further stated that the workman is
unemployed since the date of termination of his services and therefore, he has prayed that
an award be passed in his favour, thereby directing the management to reinstate him in
service with earned wages, bonus, leave encashment, full back wages including benefits
of continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
3 Management has contested the present case and filed its written statement by
taking preliminary objections inter alia that the claimant/workman has not come before
this Hon'ble Court with clean hands as such rendering this statement of claim a frivolous
one; that the claimant has deliberately concealed material facts from this Hon'ble Court,
which got to the very root of the matter; that the claimant is guilty of serious misconduct
and indiscipline in the company as on 28.12.2007, he alongwith his other coworkers
Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Shahid Imam, Ram Nath Yadav, Panna Lal and Rajpal Kumar etc.
misbehaved and assaulted the senior officers of the management with their belts and
wooden pieces etc. and thus involved himself in the illegal and unlawful acts in the
premises of the company which are serious misconduct as per the prescribed model
Standing Orders. The brief facts of the case are as under:
"On 28.12.2007, at the time of his duty at abou t04.30 pm, the claimant alongwith
5 other coworkers gathered near the outside gallery leaving their workplace and started
talking. At that time, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Production Manager came there and asked
the workmen what they are doing here and instructed to go back to their respective work
place to do work. On this all the workmen got angry and instead of returning to their work
place, they misbehaved with Mr. Ashwani Kumar by saying "who are you to ask this
question. No one can say us anything here. We will do work when we will like otherwise
ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 3/10
not and also abused him". Mr. Ashwani Kumar immediately complained in writing in this
regard to Mr. Sunil Kumar, Personnel Manager. On his complaint, Mr. Sunil Kumar
called the claimant and the said group of workmen inside his cabin for their explanation.
Mr. Giriraj, Personnel Assistant to the management was also present there at that time.
When Mr. Sunil Kumar asked from the claimant and the other coworkmen the reason for
their misbehaviour with Mr. Ashwini Kumar, the claimant and the said group of workmen
started misbehaving with Mr. Sunil Kumar also and threatened him that "TU KAUN
HOTA HAI POOCHNE WALA, MAINE TO SIRF ABHI GALLIYAN DI HAIN, ABHI
ISE BATATA HOON KI ISKA KAAND KAISE HOTA HAI" and then the workman
Mukesh Babu called the other 1015 workmen from the work place and all assaulted Mr.
Ashwini Kumar. When Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr. Giriraj tried to save Mr. Ashwani
Kumar then these workmen also started beating them with belts and wooden pieces and
due to which Mr. Sunil Kumar received severe head injuries and started bleedings. The
management immediately dialed 100 number and called the police. The police reached the
factory premises and arrested Mukesh Babu and Pannalal on the spot but the other
workmen succeeded to run away from there. A written complaint of the incident was also
given by the management on the same day of the incident i.e. 28.12.2007 to the police of
Police Station, Okhla. On the complaint of the management, a Kalandra u/s 107/151
Cr.P.C. Was also registered against two workmen namely Mukesh Babu and Pannalal. In
this incident all 3 officers of the company received serious injuries. Mr. Sunil Kumar got
head injury, Mr. Ashwini Kumar received injury below his eyes and Mr. Giriraj got
swelling in his right hand. The medical examination of these three officers was also got
conducted by police in AIIMS Hospital. Thus the act of the claimant and his coworkers
narrated hereinabove is a serious illegal act and is a grave misconduct. The claimant in hi
claim statement remained totally silent on the aspect of his misconduct, which had
ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 4/10
resulted in his dismissal vide dismissal order dt. 29.12.07 and rather he has made out the
concocted stories and new issues, which were not at all raised and/or happened. On this
ground alone, of not coming with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court, the claim of the
claimant is liable to be rejected. It is important to point out here that two workmen
namely Mohd. Shakheel and Mohd. Shahid Imam have settled their claim with the
management by accepting their guilt before the Labour Officer, South District, Pushpa
Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. On merits, it is stated that the information pertaining to
the length of service, designation and the last drawn salary are matters of record. It is
denied that the workers used to do field work also or that respondent was not facilitating
various legal facilities and it is stated that the management is a lawabiding organization where it is strictly ensured that no lapse takes place in honoring the mandatory obligations. It is further stated that the unfounded allegations hurled by the claimant are nothing but a cover up story for making out a semblance of a case and to hide his gross misbehaviour and misconduct narrated in the preliminary objections hereinabove. It is further stated that the management is a manufacturer exporter of garments and has units located at various places in India viz. Faridabad, Bangalore, Noida and Tirupur apart from Delhi and there are nearly 25000 workmen working with the management throughout the country and being a manufacture and exporter of garments, the various buying organizations regularly conduct complete compliance audit to verify and confirm whether the management complies with all labour related legislations fully. Further the various department of Govt. of Delhi also conducted inspections for checking and verification of statutory records and no lapses were ever found in the working of the management. This itself goes to prove that the allegations of the claimant are totally false and baseless and are being made by him only to cover up his own misdeeds. It is denied that when the workman demanded for the alleged facilities the management got annoyed and adopted ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 5/10 retaliating tactics or that the management stopped payment of earned wages of the claimant for the period from 01.12.2007 to 28.12.2007 and terminated his services on 29.12.2007 without notice, chargesheet and without making any payment after forcibly taking his signatures on some plain papers and blank vouchers. All other facts of statement of claim are denied word by word and ultimately it is prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed.
4 The workman filed rejoinder in which he denied all the facts of written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the facts of the statement of claim as correct and it is prayed that an award may kindly be passed in favour of the workman in terms of the prayer made by him in the statement of claim.
5 After the completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 17.10.2008:
1 Whether workman committed misconduct alleged by the management on 28.12.2007? OPM 2 If so, whether punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct, in other words, whether dismissal of workman from service was illegal and/or unjustified?
3 Relief.
6 After the framing up of the issues, the matter was fixed for management's evidence first. The management examined one witness i.e. Sh. Nitin Kumar Tyagi (Exe Legal) as MW1 and relied upon documents which are Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/7. It is a matter of record during examination in chief of MW1 Ld.AR for workman raised an objection on the ground that original documents have not been produced by the management. The objection of Ld.AR for workman was allowed and the documents were ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 6/10 marked as MarkMW1/1 to MarkMW1/17. The management did not examine any other witness and Ld.AR for management closed management's evidence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for workman's evidence but the workman did not lead any evidence despite granting various opportunities and ultimately the workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 02.09.2015 and thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments. 7 Arguments on behalf of both the parties heard. Ld.AR for workman has advanced his arguments in terms of the statement of claim. On the other hand Ld.AR for management has also advanced his arguments in terms of the written statement. 8 Record perused. On perusal of record, my issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 9 The onus to prove this issue was upon the management and the management was required to prove that the workman committed misconduct alleged by the management on 28.12.2007. The defence of the management in written statement is that the claimant is guilty of serious misconduct and indiscipline in the company as on 28.12.2007, he along with his other coworkers Mohd. Shakeel, Mohd. Shahid Imam, Ram Nath Yadav, Panna Lal and Rajpal Kumar etc. misbehaved and assaulted the senior officers of the management with their belts and wooden pieces etc. and thus involved himself in the illegal and unlawful acts in the premises of the company which are serious misconduct as per the prescribed model Standing Orders and accordingly he was dismissed from the services w.e.f. 29.12.2007. The workman denied these facts in his rejoinder. 10 MW1 was cross examined by Ld.AR for workman and in cross examination, MW1 deposed that the management had given dismissal letter dt. 29.12.07 to the workman by hand but denied the suggestion that the workman had not done manhandled with the management on 28.12.07. This witness further deposed that criminal case is not pending against the present workman before any court of law and no domestic enquiry ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 7/10 had been conducted by the management against the workman for his misconduct. This witness denied the suggestion that allegation made in para no.4 of my affidavit is false. This witness further deposed that Mr. Sunil Kumar who had received injuries on 28.12.07 is not working with the management at present but denied the suggestion that the documents filed by the management are false and fabricated. This witness further denied the suggestion that there was no allegation against the workman, hence the management had not conducted any domestic enquiry or that he is deposing falsely. The workman did not lead his evidence on this issue.
11 This is the entire evidence concerning this issue. I have perused the documents filed by the management which are MarkMW1/1 to MarkMW1/17. It is observed that original of documents MarkMW1/1, MarkMW1/2, MarkMW1/3, MarkMW1/4, Mark MW1/7, MarkMW1/8, MarkMW1/9, MarkMW1/10, MarkMW1/11 and Mark MW1/12 are placed in ID No.16/08 (old), 533/14 (new) titled as Ramnath Yadav Vs M/s. Shahi Exports and same have been exhibited as Ex.MW1/1, Ex.MW1/2, Ex.MW1/3, Ex.MW1/4, Ex.MW1/7, Ex.MW1/8, Ex.MW1/9, Ex.MW1/10, Ex.MW1/11 and Ex.MW1/12 respectively. Therefore, the marked documents can be read in evidence in this case. Documents MarkMW1/1 and MarkMW1/2 are written complaints of Sh. Ashwini Kumar dt. 28.12.07 and 29.12.07 regarding insubordination and misconduct of the workmen namely Mukesh Babu, Pannalal, Rajpal Kumar, Shahid Imam, Mohd. Shakeel and Ram Nath Yadav. Document MarkMW1/3 is an application for lodging FIR with the police against the aforesaid workmen regarding incident dt. 28.12.07. Document MarkMW1/4 is a Kalandra dt.28.12.07 u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the workmen namely Mukesh Babu and Panna Lal. Document MarkMW1/7 is a complaint dt. 29.12.07 to Dy. Labour Commissioner, Pushpa Bhawan New Delhi regarding incident dt. 28.12.07. Document MarkMW1/8 is statement of Mr. Giriraj, Personnel Assistant of the ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 8/10 management/witness to the incident dt. 28.12.07. Document MarkMW1/9 is statement of Sh. Rakesh Kr. Tiwari, witness to the incident dt. 28.12.07. Document MarkMW1/10 is statement of Sh. Govind Singh, witness to the incident dt. 28.12.07. Document Mark MW1/11 is statement of Sh. Praveen Kumar, witness to the incident dt. 28.12.07 and document MarkMW1/12 is statement of Sh. Bhandev Bhatt, witness to the incident dt. 28.12.07. In all these documents there is mentioning of incident dt. 28.12.07. The witnesses of this incident also gave their statement in writing against the said workmen. Kalandra dt. 28.12.07 u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was also filed regarding the incident dt. 28.12.07 against the said workmen. Therefore, in these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that documents MarkMW1/1, MarkMW1/2, MarkMW1/3, MarkMW1/4, MarkMW1/7, MarkMW1/8, MarkMW1/9, MarkMW1/10, MarkMW1/11 and Mark MW1/12 are sufficient to prove that the workman has committed misconduct on 28.12.2007. Issue no.1 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman. ISSUE NO.2 12 The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman and the workman was required to prove that his services were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably. The workman has not led any evidence to prove this fact despite granting various opportunities. Even otherwise while disposing off issue no.1 this court has already held herein above that the workman has committed misconduct on 28.12.2007, hence in these circumstances, it is held that the workman has failed to prove that his services were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably. Issue no.2 is decided against the workman.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.3) 13 In view of the findings of the court on issues no.1 and 2, it is held that the ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 9/10
workman is not entitled to any relief against the management and an award to that effect is passed.
14 A copy of this award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt/Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RAMESH KUMARII)
ON 26.09.2015 PRESIDING OFFICER:
LABOUR COURTIX/
EAST/KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
ID. 17/08 (old), 534/14 (new) 10/10