Delhi District Court
Umesh vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 5 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-005078-2016
Ref. No. F.24(331)/E/Lab./14/4204 Dated 14.12.2015
LIR No. 7970/2016
Sh. Umesh S/o Sh. Sukhbir,
R/o H. No. 08, Azad pur, Goan, Delhi-110033..... Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Commissioner
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110096. ..... Management
Date of Institution of the case : 23.04.2016
Date on which Award is passed : 05.10.2024
AWARD
1.By this Award, I will dispose off the reference dated 14.12.2015, received from the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, District East, Govt. of NCT of Delhi U/s 10(1)(C) & 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act vide order no. F.24(331)/ E/Lab./14/4204 Dated 14.12.2015, whereby, the following issue has been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
"Whether services of Sh. Umesh S/o. Sh. Sukhbir have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The aforesaid reference has been received by this Court on LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 1 of 21 23.04.2016, whereafter, the statement of claim was filed by the workman on 29.08.2016. Brief case of the workman as per the statement of claim is that he had joined the services of the management w.e.f. 11.11.1995 as a Substitute Safai Karamchari and was being paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. Vide order dated 22.07.2010, according to workman, the management has converted his services from Substitute Safai Karamchari to a daily wager without any change in his service conditions.
3. Thereafter, she submits that he was served with an offer letter dated 04.05.2011 qua his regularization on the post of Safai Karamchari. It is only after acceptance thereof, he submits that he was regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2011 after his medical examination and police verification. It is further the case of workman that thereafter vide a termination/ disengagement order dated 09.05.2012, his services have been illegally terminated by the management without any show cause notice/ charge sheet or domestic inquiry in violation of principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, according to workman, the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2012 is bad in law since the same had not been passed by the appointing authority of the workman. Moreover, neither any advance notice was served by the management upon the workman prior to termination of his services nor any notice pay/ retrenchment compensation was either offered or paid to the workman despite the fact that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his illegal termination.
4. It is further the case of the workman that he was meted out LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 2 of 21 with hostile discrimination as not only the juniors to him have been retained in service but even fresh hands have been taken into employment by the management after termination of his services. Since, according to him, the management has failed to reinstate the workman into the services, despite receipt of demand notice dated 18.05.2012 and despite his termination being in violation of Sections 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and he is totally unemployed with effect from the date of his illegal termination, he is entitled to the relief of his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
5. A written statement to the aforesaid statement of claim of the workman was filed on behalf of the management on 06.03.2017, which was taken on record vide order dated 17.02.2023, pursuant to recall of order dated 24.01.2017 whereby the defence of management was struck off. Brief case of the management as per its written statement is that the claimant was initially taken as a substitute safai karamchari on 22.07.2011 and was engaged in the month of August 2011. It is further the case of management that in the year 2011, a decision was taken by the management for regularization of substitute safai karamcharis who were appointed prior to the year 1996 and since the claimant had been appointed after 1996, there was no occasion for his regularization.
6. However, according to management, claimant managed to get his case considered for regularization after creating false and forged documents in connivance of the officials of accounts and LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 3 of 21 sanitation departments of the management. Pursuant to an inquiry by the vigilance department of management, according to management, the claimant alongwith 84 other substitute safai karamcharies were disengaged by the management. It is further the case of management that the claimant in connivance with the officials of management had also managed to destroy the original records of the management. The remaining record, according to management, was seized by ACB. The management has thus prayed for dismissal of claim of workman with exemplary costs.
7. Rejoinder to the aforesaid written statement of the management was thereafter filed on behalf of the workman on 31.03.2023, wherein, the workman has once again reiterated all the averments made by him in his statement of claim and has denied the contrary averments made by the management in its written statement.
8. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023:-
(i) Whether the services of the workman have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management on 09.05.2012. If so, whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential reliefs as prayed by the workman in his claim petition? (OPW)
(ii) Whether the workman submitted false and forged documents in connivance of official of accounts and sanitation department for the purpose of regularization LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 4 of 21 of his employment by the management? (OPM)
(iii) In terms of reference.
(iv) Relief, if any.
9. Workman has thereafter examined himself as WW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of his case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A alongwith following documents:
(i) Ex. WW1/1: Copy of demand notice dated 18.05.2012.
(ii) Mark A: Copy of office order dated 22.07.2010 purportedly issued by the management.
(iii) Mark B: Copy of office order dated 04.05.2011 purportedly issued by the management.
(iv) Mark C: Copy of medical record conducted by the purportedly management.
(v) Mark D: Copy of office order dated 24.05.2011 purportedly issued by the management.
(vi) Mark E: Copy of office order dated 22.07.2011 purportedly issued by the management.
(vii) Mark F: Copy of office order dated 09.05.2012 purportedly issued by the management.
(viii) Mark G: Copy of voter I.D. Card of workman.
10. Workman was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for management and thereafter, on the submission of Ld. AR for workman, workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 12.10.2023.
11. Management has thereafter examined Sh. P.S. Rawat, Administrative Officer, Shahdra, South Zone, MCD, as MW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A along with copy of disengagement order dated 09.05.2012 Ex. MW1/1 and Copy of LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 5 of 21 seizure memo in respect of record of management issued by ACB Ex. MW1/2. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for workman.
12. No other witness was examined on behalf of the management despite opportunity and the management's evidence was accordingly closed vide order dated 29.01.2024.
13. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of both the parties. It is submitted by Ld. AR for workman that the workman has been able to prove his case, not only, by way of his uncontroverted testimony in the form of affidavit Ex. WW1/A, but also, through the admissions of MW-1 during his cross- examination. He submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the services of workman were regularized by the management w.e.f. 22.07.2011 and were terminated vide order dated 09.05.2012 without any show cause notice or inquiry and without payment of any retrenchment compensation by the management to the workman. It is further submitted by him that the plea taken by the management in its written statement indicates that the removal of the workman by the management from the services was a stigmatic removal and hence, the workman could not have been removed without a proper enquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
14. He submits that the management has also failed to point out the alleged deficiency/ irregularities committed in regularization of the workman nor has the management filed the alleged false, fabricated and forged documents, which, according to the LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 6 of 21 management, were submitted by the workman for getting the benefits of regularization. He submits that the management has failed to produce any record pursuant to the application of the workman U/s 11(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the pretext that no such record is available with the management having been seized by the ACB, however, the management has failed to prove the aforesaid fact by leading any evidence.
15. It is further submitted on behalf of the workman that the workman has categorically deposed that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his services by the management and the management has failed to prove that the workman is gainfully employed. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to Ld. AR for workman, the claimant is entitled for his reinstatement into the services of the management with full back wages and continuity of service. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR for workman has also relied upon various awards passed by different Labour Courts in separate disputes raised by similarly situated employees of the management whose services were terminated by the impugned office order dated 09.05.2012 of the management.
16. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. AR for management that the workman has secured his regularization on the basis of forged and fabricated documents despite the fact that he was not eligible for regularization. Since, according to him, the regularization of the workman itself is doubtful, there was no need for the management to conduct any inquiry. Even otherwise, according to him, the workman has failed to prove on record that LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 7 of 21 he had completed 240 days of continuous service with the management at any point of time, much less, within the year immediately preceding the date of his disengagement, there was no occasion for the management to follow the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the workman has also failed to porve violation of provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the management.
17. It is further submitted by him that non production of the original service record of the workman by the management was due to the reasons beyond the control of the management as some of the original record of the management has been destroyed by the workman in connivance with the officials of management, whereas, the remaining record has already been seized by the ACB in an FIR lodged qua irregularities in regularization of certain employees of the management and hence, no adverse inference can be raised against the management for non production of the aforesaid record, more so, when the management has produced photocopy of the available record alongwith affidavit of Assistant Commissioner Shahdara (South) Zone on 11.01.2019 pursuant to an application of workman u/s 11(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, genuineness of which has not been disputed by the workman. Ld. AR for management has thus prayed for dismissal of the claim of workman with exemplary cost, while relying upon the awards dated 09.09.2024 and 10.09.2024 passed by this Court in two similar matters bearing nos. LIR 7930/2016 and LIR 7941/2016.
LIR No.7970/2016Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 8 of 21
18. In rebuttal, it is submitted by Ld. AR for workman that the facts of the present case are different than the facts of the case in LIR No.7930/2016 and LIR 7941/2016, in as much as, in the present case the name of the workman does not fall under the category of workers who had allegedly not joined the services of the management pursuant to their regularization order, as was the case before this Court in LIR No.7930/2016 and LIR 7941/2016. He submits that in the present case, even as per the disengagement order dated 09.05.2012, the workman had not only joined the services of management pursuant to his regularization but he had also drawn salary from the management. Moreover, according to him, there is no issue is settled in the present case regarding non-service of demand notice by the workman upon the management as was the case in LIR No.7930/2016 and LIR 7941/2016.
19. While relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MCD v. Pushpa Rani & Ors. LPA Nos 935-938/2011 reported as 2012:DHC:4267-DB, he submits that considering the defence of the management in its written statement i.e. that the services of workman were terminated since he had secured regularization of his services on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, the management was bound to conduct an inquiry before termination of services of the workman.
20. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record in the light of submissions made by Ld. ARs for both the parties. My issue wise findings on the issues, settled by this Court vide order LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 9 of 21 dated 31.03.2023, are as follow:-
Issue no. (i): Whether the services of the workman have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management on 09.05.2012. If so, whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential reliefs as prayed by the workman in his claim petition? (OPW)
21. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the workman, in as much as, it is the workman who has alleged illegal termination of his services by the management w.e.f. 09.05.2012. There is no dispute by the management that the services of the workman were terminated by the management with immediate effect vide office order dated 09.05.2012.
22. It is submitted by Ld. AR for workman that the termination of the workman by the management, vide order dated 09.05.2012, purportedly on the ground that his regularization was in violation of prescribed criteria, is illegal in view of the admitted fact that no show cause notice was ever served by the management upon the workman prior to termination of his services nor any inquiry was conducted by the management into the aforesaid allegations.
23. He submits that the management has failed to prove service of any advance notice, in terms of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the management upon the workman prior to termination of his services. He submits that the management has also failed to plead or prove the payment of any wages in lieu of the aforesaid notice or for that matter of the service compensation by the management to the workman prior LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 10 of 21 to termination of his services w.e.f. 09.05.2012. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, the termination of services of the workman by the management was clearly illegal.
24. Moreover, according to him, the management has failed to prove that any seniority list of the employees working in the same category was ever displayed by the management prior to termination of his services and hence the termination of the services of the workman by the management vide order dated 09.05.2012 was also in violation of provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
25. So far as the plea of workman regarding violation by the management of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, it is significant to note in this regard that for applicability of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was incumbent upon the workman to prove that he had continuously worked for at least 240 days within the year immediately preceding the date of termination of his services by the management.
26. No doubt, the workman, in his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, has categorically alleged that he had worked continuously and uninterruptedly from 11.11.1995 to 09.05.2012, however, he has failed to produce any document in support of his aforesaid plea despite the fact that the aforesaid oral testimony of the workman was sought to be controverted by the management during cross-examination of the workman by suggesting that he had worked for merely six days in the year 1995 (i.e. for two days each in October, November and LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 11 of 21 December 1995), for 2 days each in the years 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2005, for 10 days in the year 1999, for four days each in the years 2004, 2006 and 2007 and had not worked even for a single day in the years 1996, 2001, 2002 and 2008 to 2012. Though, the workman has denied the aforesaid suggestions qua the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000-2012, however, he has avoided answer to suggestions qua the years 1995 and 1999.
27. On the other hand, the management has produced the photocopy of the attendance record of the claimant for the period 1995 to 2012 on 11.01.2019 and few other documents alongwith its reply to the application of workman u/s 11(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is duly accompanied by the affidavit of Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara (South) Zone, MCD, which reflects that the workman had worked for the management for a period of merely 38 days in total during 1995 to 2012. The aforesaid record thus reflects that the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service not only in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination but even during the entire period of his alleged employment with the management.
28. No doubt, the management has failed to tender the aforesaid record in its evidence, however, even the workman had failed to dispute the aforesaid record during his evidence despite the fact that the same had already been filed by the management alongwith affidavit of concerned Assistant Commissioner on 11.01.2019, pursuant to the demand of the workman by way of his application u/s 11(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
LIR No.7970/2016Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 12 of 21 In fact, the workman has not even pressed his application u/s 11(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after production of the aforesaid record by the management. On the other hand, the management has tendered a copy of seizure memo dated 31.03.2014 issued by ACB as Ex. MW-1/2, which reflects that the Original Attendance registers of the management were seized by ACB in FIR No. 04/2014.
29. Thus, the management had produced whatever record was in its possession and in case, the workman wanted production of original record, nothing stopped him from summoning the original record from the IO of the case pertaining to FIR No. 04/2014, which is being investigated by the ACB, since the onus to prove continuous service of 240 days immediately preceding the date of his alleged termination was upon the workman.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the workman has failed to prove that he had been in continuous service of the management for a period of at least 240 days immediately preceding the date of his alleged termination, which was a sine a non for applicability of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since, the workman has failed to bring out his case under the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there is no question of violation thereof by the management.
31. Now coming to the applicability of the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947. It is well settled legal position that for applicability of provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there is no requirement of proof by LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 13 of 21 the workman of the fact he had continuously worked for a period of 240 days within the year immediately preceding the date of his termination by the management. The workman, in his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit has vaguely alleged that the management, prior to termination of his services, has not displayed any seniority list and has meted out hostile discrimination to him by throwing him out of the job while retaining persons junior to him in service.
32. In my considered opinion, mere non-display of seniority list in respect of a particular category of employees by the management by itself shall not have the effect of proof of violation of provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In order to prove the violation of provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the management, in my considered opinion, it was incumbent upon the workman to prove that any employee, junior to the workman, in the same category in which the workman was employed by the management was retained in service by the management at the time of termination of his services. However, the workman has failed to name even a single employee who was junior to him and was retained by the management in services though he was thrown out of the services. The admission by MW-1 during his cross-examination that the safai karamcharies who had joined the employment of the management in each year since 1996 till date are still working with the management shall not have the effect of proof of violation by the management of the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he had admittedly not even seen the service record of the workman and LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 14 of 21 no documentary evidence in support of the said plea has either been produced by the workman nor production thereof has been sought from the management.
33. Similarly, so far as the violation by the management, of the provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is concerned, the workman has failed to prove that the management had hired any fresh hands for the same job after termination of his services.
34. Now coming to the plea of the workman that in view of defence of the management in its written statement, since his removal from the services was a stigmatic removal, the management was duty bound to conduct an inquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice and since admittedly no domestic inquiry was conducted by the management nor the workman was given any opportunity of hearing before termination of his services, the termination of the workman by the management vide order dated 09.05.2012 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
35. Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines retrenchment to mean 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, except under the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to (c) of the aforesaid section. Thus, except in cases listed under clause (a) to (c) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in case where the services of the workman are terminated by an employer by way of a punishment, the services of a workman can LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 15 of 21 be terminated by an employer after compliance with the provisions of Chapters V-A and V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and such a termination can be set aside if it is found to be in violation of either of the aforesaid provisions provided the workman is able to make out a case that his case is covered under any of the aforesaid provisions.
36. In the case in hand, it has already been observed hereinabove that the workman has failed to bring his case under either of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G or 25H, all of which provisions fall under chapter V-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and violation of which has been alleged by him in his statement of claim. It is settled legal position that in case termination of services of a workman by the management is by way of punishment or in other words, if his removal from the services is a stigmatic removal, the management is bound to hold a domestic inquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice before the services of the workman are terminated by the management by way of punishment. The same principle has even been laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MCD v. Pushpa Rani & Ors. LPA No. 935-938/2011 relied upon by Ld. AR for workman.
37. With utmost respect to Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment does not assist the case of workman since the workman in his statement of claim has not even alleged that his services have been terminated by the management by way of punishment or that his removal from the services is a stigmatic removal. In fact, the aforesaid plea of the LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 16 of 21 workman, even if taken by the workman, would have been inherently contradictory to his plea of violation by the management of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and could not have co-existed together, since termination of services of a workman by way of punishment is specifically excluded from the definition of retrenchment, whereas, the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H are applicable only in case of a retrenchment.
38. Moreover, the workman has sought to challenge the disengagement order dated 09.05.2012 of the management, operative part of which reads as under:
"Office Order It was brought to the notice of this department that irregularities have been committed in regularization of certain safai karamcharies who were recently posted by DEMS(HQ).
The matter has been examined in detail, in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer, MCD. During the course of examination, it has been observed that safai karamcharies who do not fulfill the criteria for regularization have been regularized in violation of the prescribed criteria.
On consideration of all aspects of the case, the competent authority i.e. commissioner, MCD vide his orders dated 27.04.2012 is pleased to direct as follows:-
a) All the following 85SKs listed bellow are hereby disengaged with immediate effect.
b) salary in respect of the 08 Safai Karmacharies in list 'C' who worked as regular Safai Karamcharies be paid upto the date immediately preceding their disengagement."LIR No.7970/2016
Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 17 of 21
39. Thereafter, names of 85 disengaged Karamcharies are mentioned in five lists i.e. List A to E and the name of workman in the present case admittedly falls under List 'E'. From the aforesaid office order dated 09.05.2012, by no stretch of imagination, the termination of services of the workman can be considered to be by way of punishment or a stigmatic removal, in as much as, no irregularity/misconduct has been imputed to the workman. The termination order, under challenge before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MCD v. Pushpa rani & Ors. LPA No. 935- 938/2011, has neither been reproduced in the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench in its judgment reported as 2012:DHC:4267-DB nor in the judgment dated 27.07.2011 of Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) 1075-78/2011 reported as 2011:DHC:18129. However, on a perusal of both the aforesaid judgments, it appears that the termination on the workmen in the aforesaid case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court was on account of submission of forged and fabricated documents by them to secure the jobs.
40. On the other hand, in the present case, it is apparent from order dated 09.05.2012 of the management that there are no allegations against the workman therein regarding submission of any forged or fabricated document or of any other misconduct and hence, the workman can't be allowed to contend that any domestic inquiry was required to be conducted by the management before termination of his services, merely because the management in its written statement has taken such a plea. In my considered opinion, the workman can't be allowed to change the goalpost on the basis of plea taken by the management in its LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 18 of 21 written statement without any supporting documents. In fact, in my considered opinion, if the workman was aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the management dated 09.05.2012, he should have approached the management with a request to provide the reasons for his termination and upon supply of any reason by the management that his services were terminated due to submission of any forged or fabricated document by him or on account of any other misconduct, he should have raised a proper dispute.
41. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the present case is a case of simpliciter retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and since the workman has failed to prove violation of any of the provisions of Chapter V-A and V-B including the provisions of Section 25F, 25G or 25H, the termination of his services by management vide order dated 09.05.2012 can not be considered to be illegal.
42. Now, in order to prove termination of his services by the management to be unjustified, the workman could have proved that the reasons given in the order dated 09.05.2012 for termination of his services were not correct i.e. his regularization was not in violation of the prescribed criteria. A bare perusal of record reveals that there are no pleadings or evidence led by the workman to the aforesaid effect.
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the workman has failed to prove illegal termination of his services by the management w.e.f. 09.05.2012 and hence, he LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 19 of 21 is not entitled to any relief.
44. Issue no. (i) is thus decided against the workman.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the workman submitted false and forged documents in connivance of official of accounts and sanitation department for the purpose of regularization of his employment by the management? (OPM)
45. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the management, however, management has failed to lead any evidence on the aforesaid issue. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided against the management.
Issue no. (iii): In terms of reference.
46. Issue no. (i) has already been settled and decided hereinabove in terms of the reference order dated 14.12.2015 against the workman and hence, the reference is decided against the workman.
Issue no. (v): Relief, if any.
47. In view of my findings on issues no. (i) and (iii) hereinabove, in my considered opinion, the workman is not entitled to any relief.
48. The claim of the workman is thus dismissed and the reference dated 14.12.2015 is answered in the following manner:
"The claimant Sh. Umesh S/o Sh. Sukhbir has failed to prove that his services were terminated by the management either illegally or unjustifiably. He is thus not entitled to any relief."
49. Ordered accordingly.
LIR No.7970/2016Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 20 of 21
50. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
Announced in the open Court on this 05th day of October, 2024. This award consists of 21 number of signed pages.
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR ARUN KUMAR GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.05 16:09:54 +05'30' (ARUN KUMAR GARG) Presiding Officer Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi LIR No.7970/2016 Umesh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Award dated 05.10.2024 Page 21 of 21