Delhi District Court
Sh. Amar Kant Rao S/O Sh. Dharam Dev Rao vs M/S Tech Book International Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 26 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI.
LCA No.: 4/14
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Sh. Amar Kant Rao S/o Sh. Dharam Dev Rao
R/o 1st Floor, Room No.21,
H No. 95, Gali no.3,
Jagdamba Colony, Ali Vihar, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi76
............ Workman
AND
1. M/s Tech Book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
2. Through its Managing Director
3. Through HR Manager
A28, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi 44
........Management
Date of Institution : 31.10.12
Date Of ORDER : 26.07.14
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 1 out of page 24
ORDER
By this order I shall decided this application filed by the applicant/workman under section 33C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
2. Brief facts as stated in the application are that the applicant/claimant was working with the management as a 'Proof Reader' on the salary of Rs. 5000/ per month. He was issued letter of intend dated 25.05.2005 and was instructed to join at A28, Mohan Cooperative Industrial State on or before 26.05.05. His service was confirmed vide letter dated 26.11.05 and was given increment vide letter dated 01.01.12. On 30.05.12 he was informed orally that he has to report at some place at Madanpur, Kheda near Sarita Vihar. He requested that a formal order be issue in writing to join such place upon which management told that he should clear his dues and tender his resignation and from 30.06.12 he was not allowed to resumed his duty. He called several time to meet the management, however, he was not allowed to enter into the premises by security guard stating that management had give order LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 2 out of page 24 that he was not allowed inside the premises. He filed a complaint dated 07.06.12 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and he received letter dated 28.08.12 from the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner that upon his complaint of the management were inspected but the management failed to show records of employee. The management was asked to appear on 26.06.12 and one Aditya Narain appear and sought a date and thereafter nobody appear on behalf of the management after 27.06.12. He stated that his service has been terminated without providing him any reason, and he prior notice reinstated that his last drawn salary was Rs. 11,800/ and the management has not paid him salary from June 2012, management is liable to pay the following dues:
PARTICULARS AMOUNT
(Rs)
Salary for the period June 2012 to September 2012 @ Rs. 47,200.00
11800.00
Salary in lieu of notice - equivalent to one month's salary 11,800.00
Leave encashment @ 32 days salary per year of service 86,898.00
i.e. Rs. 12,414.00 X 7 Years
Arrears of bonus (January 2012 to May 2012) 3,665.00
Overtime 60 hours X Rs. 54.16 3,249.00
Conveyance 4,000.00
Total: 1,56,812.00
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 3 out of page 24
3. He further stated that management is also liable to pay the gratuity amount and documents relating to PF & ESI. He claimed a total sum of Rs. 2,56,812/ alongwith the 12% interest from management.
4. The notice of the reference was issued to the management. Management filed reply. In the reply preliminary objection is taken with the application has not been filed in the prescribed form K (3) under Rule 62 (2) of the I.D. Rules and further objection was taken that the applicant is not having any existing right to received the claim amount from the management. Therefore, application under 33C (2) of I.D. Act is not maintainable. Further objection was taken that the claim of payment of gratuity and bonus are not maintainable under section 32C (2) on I.D. Act. Further objection was taken that claimant was working as proof reader and he started remaining absent with effect from 04.06.12 without any information, permission and sanction of the management and instead of reporting for duties he indulged in false and frivolous allegations against the management. The management vide its letter dated 17.09.12 advised him to report for his duty but he failed to report his duty and thus, he abandon the service. Further, it is LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 4 out of page 24 stated that claimant has not earned wages as he was not attaining the duties and the issues of earned wages cannot be decided by this court u/s 33C (2) as it is an Industrial Dispute. Further, he stated claimant has not work over time and has not earned the same, therefore, he is not entitled for over time wages.
5. On merits contents of statement of claim/application were denied as incorrect. It is reiterated that claimant remain absent from duty from 04.06.12 and thus, abandon the services. He was asked before the Labour Authority to report for duty but he failed to do so. Since, claimant remains absent from duty since 04.06.12 he did not earned any wages and not entitled to receive any wages. Further, it is stated claimant/ had 34.5 days of accumulated leaves in his account and thus, he is entitled to receive only Rs. 8,625/ and he is also entitled to received Rs. 6,300/ as bonus from September 2011 to June 2011, and not anything more.
6. Later on workman has filed an application for amendment of the statement of claim which was allowed vide order dated 17.05.13 by Ld. Predecessor and thus, he amended the dated as 28.05.12 instead of 30.05.12 in Para 7 and 30.05.12 instead of 30.06.12 in Para 9 and 01.06.12 instead of 30.06.12 in Para 18. He LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 5 out of page 24 also corrected name of his father as Dharam Dev Rao in his affidavit in evidence.
7. No rejoinder was filed by workman to the reply of the management. As vide order dated 09.04.14 for following issued were framed:
1. Whether the application has not been filed in the prescribed form K3 under rule 62(2) of the I. D. Rules and it does carry the requisite information as prescribed in the format, if so, to what effect?OPM
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief as claimed? OPW
3. Relief.
8. In order to prove his case, the claimant/workman only examined himself as WW1 by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A. and also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. He was cross examined by Ld. AR for workman.
9. On the other hand, management has examined Sh. Sanjay Lakhra manager, HR as MW1 through lead his evidence as MW1/A, he was also crossexamined.
10. Arguments were heard from Sh. Indrajeet Singh, Ld. LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 6 out of page 24 Advocate from DLSA for the application/workman and Sh. K.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the management. I have heard arguments and gone through record. My issue was finding are as under:
Issue No.1
11. It is argued by the Ld. AR for management that the application u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act has not been filed in prescribed format as provided under rule 62 of the Industrial Dispute rules,1957, therefore, same is not maintainable.
12. I have gone through the said rules which are reproduce below:
(i) Where any money is due from an employer to a workman or a group of workmen under a settlment or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA, 3 [Chapter VB], the workman are the group of workmen, as the case may be may apply in Form K 1 for the recovery of the money:
Provided that in the case of a person authorized in writing by the workman, or in the case of the death of the workman the assignee or heir of the deceased workman, the application shall be made in Form K2.
(ii) Where any workman or a group of workmen is entitled to received from the employer anymoney r any benefit which is LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 7 out of page 24 capable being computed in terms of money, the workman or the group of workmen, as the case may be, may apply to the specified Labour Court in Form K 3 for the determination of the amount due or, as the case may be, the amount which such benefit should be computed.]"
13. Thus from the aforesaid rule it is evident that applicant can file the application in the format provided u/s K3 where he is seeking relief from the labour court. In my view all facts which are necessary facts as per form K3 has been mentioned in the application filed by the workman. Though he has specifically filed the application in the format which is provided in form K3 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1962 but in my view filing of application in exact format is not necessary what is necessary is the contents. Hence, I held that the application is maintainable. Issue no.1 decided accordingly.
Issue No.2
14. The workman in order to prove his case has only examined himself as WW1. He lead his evidence through affidavit i.e. Ex. WW1/A in which he has almost repeated the same facts as stated by him in his application u/s 33C (2) of the I.D. Act. He has also rely upon the documents Ex. WW1/1WW1/11. WW1 is letter LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 8 out of page 24 of management intending offering the workman to in the job. The letter Ex. WW1/2 is the appointment letter of the workman. WW1/3 is confirmation letter. WW1/4 is increment letter. WW1/5 is complaint filed by the workman with the labour department. WW1/6 is the letter of the labour department to the workman informing him that the management had not came to join the proceedings. WW1/7 is legal demand notice sent by the workman. WW1/8, WW1/9, WW1/10 is the postal receipt. The salary slip of the workman.
15. On the other hand, management has examined through Sh. Sanjay Lakhra manager, HR as witness to prove that workman is not entitled to relief claim in the application. Sh. Sanjay Lakhra in his evidence Ex. MW1/A has almost repeated the same contents as stated in the reply of the management.
16. It is argued by the Ld. AR for management that an application u/s 33C (2) of I.D. Act is in the nature of execution therefore, where there is any award or settlement or where there is any preexisting rights which need to be computed in term of money or any money is to be recovered an application u/s 33C (2) of I.D. Act lies. Since workman has not claim the relief on the basis LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 9 out of page 24 of award, settlement or preexisting right. And the money claimed by the workman on account of non payment of salary, overtime, leave encashment and conveyence are disputed question which has not been previously decided Hence, as per mandate of section 33C(2) of Act, this court has no right to decide, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed.
17. Ld. AR has further argued that since workman has himself remained absent from duty therefore management is not liable to pay salary for the month June to Sept,2009, notice pay. He further argued that since workman has done overtime therefore not entitle to any overtime wages. He argued that workman is only entitle to encashment of his 34.5 days earned leave and bonus of Rs.6300/ which management is agreed to pay.
18. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the workman has contended that since workman has been terminated illegally by the management. Therefore, he is entitled for all the relief claimed by him.
19. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act provides that:
Section 33C(2) of I.D. Act is reproduced as under: LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 10 out of page 24 " Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government [within a period not exceeding three months] (2) [ provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit."
20. I am fully agree with the contention of the Ld. AR for the workman that proceedings u/s 33C (2) is in the nature of execution and only preexisting rights of the parties or any any award or settlement granting any benefits to workman which need to be computed in term of money can be determined in an application u/s 33 (c) (2) of the I.D. Act. In support of this contention I also rely upon the judgment State of Utter Pardesh LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 11 out of page 24 & another vs Brijpal Singh Civil Appeal no.5910/2005 dt. 27.09.2005 where in Honble Supreem Court has held that:
"It is well settled that the workman can proceed under Section 33C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under Section 33A or on a reference under Section 10 that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the case of Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand , (1978) 2 SCC 144 held that a proceeding under Section 33C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further, this Court held that the right to the money which is sought to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer. This Court further held as follows:
"It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) to arrogate to itself the functions of LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 12 out of page 24 an industrial tribunal and entertain a claim which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the Act."
Further in this case Supreme Court held that :
"Thus it is clear from the principle enunciated in the above decisions that the appropriate forum where question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum, the respondentworkman cannot ask the Labour Court in an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to compute his wages. It is, therefore, impossible for us to accept the LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 13 out of page 24 arguments of Mrs. Shymala Pappu that the respondentworkman can file application under Section 33C(2) for determination and payment of wages on the basis that he continues to be in service pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 15172 of 1987 dated 28.10.1987. The argument by the learned counsel for the workman has no force and is unacceptable. The Labour Court, in our opinion, has erred in allowing the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act and ordering payment of not only the salary but also bonus to the workman although he has not attended the office of the appellants after the stay order obtained by him. The Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in passing the order in question which was rightly impugned before the High Court and erroneously dismissed by the High Court. The High Court has also equally committed a manifest error in not considering the scope of Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1993 dated 23.8.1995 and the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 36406 of 1995 as illegal and uncalled for. We do so accordingly."
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razek & Anr. , (1995) 1 SCC 235. Hon,ble Supreem LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 14 out of page 24 Court held as under:
"12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33 C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compare the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33 C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity required interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 15 out of page 24 In the case of State Bank of India vs. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. , (2001) 1 SCC 73, this Court held as under:
"7. When a reference is made to an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to whether the termination of a workman is justified or not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of examination of the question whether the reinstatement should be with full or partial back wages or none. Such a question is one of fact depending upon the evidence to be produced before the Tribunal. If after the termination of the employment, the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere it is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether or not reinstatement should be with full back wages or with continuity of employment. Such questions can be appropriately examined only in a reference. When a reference is made under Section 10 of the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be determined by the Tribunal and in this particular case, a specific question has been referred to the Tribunal as to the nature of relief to be granted to the workmen.
8. The principles enunciated in the decisions referred by either side can be summed up as follows:
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 16 out of page 24 Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33 C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33 C(2) of the Act is necessarily a pre existing benefit or one flowing from a preexisting right. The difference between a preexisting right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33C(2) of the Act while the latter does not. It cannot be spelt out from the award in the present case that such a right or benefit has accrued to the workman as the specific question of the relief granted is confined only to the reinstatement without stating anything more as to the back wages. Hence that relief must be deemed to have been denied, for what is claimed but not granted necessarily gets denied in judicial or quasi judicial proceeding. Further when a question arises as to the adjudication of a claim for back wages all relevant circumstances which will have to be gone into, are to be considered in a judicious manner.
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 17 out of page 24 Therefore, the appropriate forum wherein such question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. To state that merely upon reinstatement, a workman would be entitled, under the terms of award, to all his arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect because several factors will have to be considered, as stated earlier, to find out whether the workman is entitled to back wages at all and to what extent. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have presumed that the award of the Labour Court for grant of back wages is implied in the relief of reinstatement or that the award of reinstatement itself conferred right for claim of back wages."
21. Now reverting back to the case workman has claimed salary for the period June 2012 to September, 2012. The workman in his testimony led through EXWW1/A has deposed that on 30.05.2012 he was informed orally that he has to report at Madanpur, Khadar Near Sarita Vihar and when he demanded written order he was told to get clear his dues and tender his resignation and he was not allowed to resumed his duties whereas LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 18 out of page 24 the management in his reply has stated that workman is himself remain unauthorizedly absent from 04.06.12 without information and thus, abandoned service. Thus, it is a disputed question whether workman himself workman was not allowed to resumed the duty or he himself absented. Hence, same cannot be determined in this proceedings u/s 33C (2) and can be only determine in proceeding u/s 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
22. The other money claimed by workman is salary of one month in lieu of the notice pay. Though his testimony he has not disclosed on what basis he is claiming the computation of said amount, but it appear he is claiming retrenchment compensation as provided u/s 25 F of I.D Act. According to him he has been illegally retrenched by management, whereas as per testimony of MW1 the workman has remained unauthorizedly absented w.e.f. 4 June 2012. Hence, as stated above it is a disputed question whether workman himself workman was not allowed to resumed the duty or he himself absented. Hence, same cannot be determined in this proceedings u/s 33C (2) and can be only determine in proceeding u/s 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 19 out of page 24
23. The workman has claimed computation of overtime wages of 60 hours at the rate of Rs. 54.16 per hour. The management has denied in its written statement that workman has done any over time. Onus is on the workman to proved that he has done any over time but, he as failed to lead any evidence except is self testimony, to prove that he has done any over time. Hence, I held that workman is not entitled to any amount qua overtime.
24. The workman also claimed computation of Conveyance Allowances which he has calculated as Rs. 4000/ but, neither in his statement nor in his affidavit Ex. WW1/A he has deposed for what basis & at what rule he has calculated Rs. 4000 as conyence allowance. The management in W.S. has denied that workman is entitled to received conveyance allowance as claimed by him. Again onus was on the workman to proved that he was being paid conveyance allowance which management has stopped or he has an existing right to get conveyance allowance but he has led no documentary evidence in this regard. Rather from the salary slip of the workman Ex. WW1/11, I found that no dispute whether he is entitle to conveyance allowance can not be determined in LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 20 out of page 24 proceedings u/s 10 of the I.D. Act & not u/s 33C (2) I.D. Act as in these proceedings only preexisting right can be determined. Workman has failed to prove that he has any preexisting right of conveyance allowance mentioned as conveyance which means he was not being paid conveyance, therefore, relief claim by the workman is vague and he is not entitled for same.
25. The workman has also claimed computation of earned leave. He has claimed leave encashment of 32 days salary per year of service. MW1 has deposed that the accumulated leave as per his leave account was 34.5 leave and thus entitled for Rs. 8625/ on this account. The onus was on the workman to prove that he was entitled to encashment of 32 days leave per year. But workman has not produced any document to proved how much yearly leave he was entitled and how many leave he has availed during his service and how many leave remained balance which he could get encashed. As per clause 22 (1) (a) of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act 1954 after every twelve months continuous employment every employee shall be entitled to privilege leave for a total period of not less than 15 days."
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 21 out of page 24
26. Further as per Section 22(1A)(i) provides that the privilege leave which an employee is entitled u/clause 22 (1) (A) or under any such law, contract, custom or usage , award, settlement or agreement if not availed by such employee shall be added to privilege leave in respect of any succeeding period but total period of such privilge leave shall not exceed three time for the period of privilege leave. As stated above workman has not produced any document how much yearly leave was provided to him hence in the absence of same I presume he was entitle to at least 15 days leave in a year thus, I am agree with the contention of Ld. AR for workman that a workman leave cannot be accompanied more than 45 days even if, he has not taken any leave at all, so he will not be entitled for leave encashment for more than 45 days.
27. As states above, the onus was on the workman to prove that how much leave accumulated in his account but, he has failed to proved that record in documents in this regard. Hence, in these circumstances, I do not found any ground to reject the testimony of MW1 that only 34.5 leave was balance in the account of workman LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 22 out of page 24 which he entitled to encash and as per his pay slip his basic pay and House rent was 6500/ per month. Generally leave encashment include basic pay and dearness allowances. As per payslip EXWW1/11 his basic pay was Rs.6500/ per month. DA is not mentioned in pay slip. From basic pay the amount of 34.5 days comes to Rs.7475/(6500/30x34.5) but since management has stated that workman leave encashment amount is Rs.8625/ therefore, I held that he is entitle to Rs.8625/ for leave encashment.
28. Workman has claimed computation of bonus from January 2012 to May 2012 @ i.e. total Rs. 3665. Management has also in the reply has stated that workman is entitled to pay the bonus of Rs. 6300/ which is more than what workman is claimed. Hence, I held that workman is entitle to bonus of Rs.6300/.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I held that the workman is entitle to Rs.14925/ (Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five Only) i.e. Rs.8625 for leave encashment and Rs. 6300/ for bonus. He is not entitle for computation of other benefits claimed by him. Copy of the order be sent to the Secretary LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 23 out of page 24 Labour, Govt. NCT of Delhi for information and necessary action as per rules.
Announced in the Open Court on this 26th July, 2014 (SANJEEV KUMAR) Presiding Officer, Labour Court Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LCA No.4/14 Amar Kant Rao V/s Tech book International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 24 out of page 24