Delhi District Court
Amit Kumar Jain vs Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd on 30 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUJIT SAURABH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-IX, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
LID No. 818/16
CNR No. DLCT13-008029-2016
AMIT KUMAR JAIN Vs. Dr. REDDY'S LABORATORIES
LTD.
Sh. Amit Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. A.K. Jain
R/o H.No.758 (2nd Floor),
Mohini Complex, Near Jain Mandir,
Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-110017 ....... Workman
VERSUS
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.
2md Floor, MH-2, Near Naraina Medical Centre,
Near C-Block, Community Centre,
Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028
Also, at:
7-1-27, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad-500016,
Telangana, India ...... Management
Date of Institution : 05.07.2016
Date of Award : 30.08.2025
AWARD
1.Vide this award, I shall dispose of a statement of claim filed by the workman (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') directly before LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 1 of 19 the Court against the management under the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short, 'I.D. Act').
2. As per statement of claim, the claimant was appointed by the management vide appointment letter dated 01.02.2012. His performance was satisfactory. His work was appreciated by the management and his salary was increased every year. His last increased salary was Rs.35,000/-. In the last six months of his service, the claimant was harassed and humiliated by the management. He was issued show cause notices. He received a termination letter dated 04.02.2015 from the management. The claimant served a demand notice dated 27.02.2015 upon the management. The management did not reply to the notice. On 28.12.2015, the management sent a relieving letter to the claimant stating therein that his resignation letter dated 04.02.2015 has been accepted. The claimant has denied that he had sent any resignation letter dated 04.02.2015. The management also issued a service certificate dated 28.12.2015 along with the relieving letter, mentioning therein that the claimant had worked from 01.02.2012 to 04.02.2015 as 'Area Sales Manager'. The claimant has stated that he was appointed as Area Sales Manager for the purpose of window dressing only. He was not authorized to appoint anyone or to sign cheques etc. and as such he falls within the definition of workman. He has further stated that he is unemployed since 04.02.2015.
Under these compelling circumstances, he had filed a statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer, office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner, DTC Colony, Pratap Nagar, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. However, the management did not join the conciliation proceedings LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 2 of 19 resulting in failure of the conciliation proceeding. The Conciliation Officer issued a failure certificate vide certificate No. F. No. C- 152/16/ALC/SWD/27/6488-89 dated 03.06.2016. Accordingly, the instant statement of claim was filed before the court.
The claimant has prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and other consequential benefits.
3. Vide order dated 05.07.2016, notice of the statement of claim was issued to the management. The management put up appearance through authorized representative (in short, 'AR') and filed written statement.
Rejoinder to the written statement was filed on behalf of the workman.
4. In the written statement, the management has stated that the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The management has stated that the statement of claim of the workman is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The management has further stated that the services of the claimant were terminated after following due procedure and giving proper opportunity to the claimant. The management has alleged insubordination, lack of responsibility and under performance on the part of the claimant. The management issued show cause notice dated 06.11.2014 to the claimant. The claimant replied to the show cause notice vide reply dated 10.11.2024. However, the reply of the claimant was not found satisfactory. Vide office order dated 26.12.2024, warning notice was issued to the claimant. Vide email dated 19.01.2015, the management LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 3 of 19 communicated to the claimant that he had under performed. The claimant replied to the email vide email dated 22.01.2015. However, the reply was found unsatisfactory. The management, once again, issued show cause notice dated 28.01.2015 to the claimant, highlighting various instances of insubordination and called upon him to submit written explanation. However, written explanation was not received from the claimant. Left with no option, the management terminated the services of the claimant vide office order dated 04.02.2015.
5. Vide order dated 12.01.2017, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court:
i. Whether the claimant was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act or whether he was working in managerial capacity and is within the exceptions enumerated therein? OPP ii. Whether the courts at Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction? OPM iii. Whether the workman was negligent and if so, whether an enquiry has been initiated? OPM iv. Whether the services of workman have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably? OPW v. Relief.
WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE (WE)
6. The claimant (workman) led evidence in support of his claim.
Sole witness examined on behalf of the claimant is claimant himself. He stepped in the witness box as WW-1 and tendered his LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 4 of 19 evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW-1/A. He relied upon following documents:
i. Photocopy of letter of appointment dated 27.01.2012, issued by the management Ex. WW1/1, ii. Photocopy of details of his first year annual salary Ex.
WW1/2, iii. Photocopy of termination letter dated 04.02.2015 Ex.
WW1/3, iv. Photocopy of demand notice dated 27.02.2015 Ex. WW1/4, v. Photocopy of relieving letter dated 28.12.2015, issued by the management Ex. WW1/5, vi. Copy of service certificate dated 28.12.2015, issued by the management Ex. WW1/6 and vii. Photocopy of postal receipts Mark-A. 6.1 During cross-examination of WW-1, following documents were also exhibited:
i. Copy of show cause notice dated 06.11.2014 sent by the management Ex. WW1/D1, ii. Copy of reply to the show cause notice dated 06.11.2014 Ex.WW1/D2, iii. Copy of e-mail dated 25.11.2014 sent by the management to the claimant Ex. WW1/D3, iv. Copy of warning letter/office order dated 26.12.2014 Ex.
WW1/D4, v. Copy of performance warning dated 19.01.2015 Ex.WW1/D5, vi. Copy of show-cause notice dated 28.01.2015 sent by the management Ex.WW1/D6, vii. Translation of email sent by the claimant to the management Ex.WW1/D7, viii. Copy of emails sent by the claimant to the management Ex.WW1/D8 and Ex. WW1/D9 respectively, ix. Memo of parties Ex. WW1/D10, x. Documents Ex.WW1/D11(colly), xi. Photographs showing sign board of pharmacy of the claimant Ex. WW1/D12.
6.2 Vide order dated 13.09.2018, the claimant was directed to place on record the records of his job applications. Accordingly, the LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 5 of 19 claimant had filed print outs of emails of job applications Ex.WW1/MX1(colly).
6.3 Vide order dated 27.10.2018, WE was closed as per submissions of AR of the claimant. Thereafter, an application under Order 16 rule 7 r/w and Order 18 rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the management for recalling of the claimant for further cross examination. Vide order dated 21.05.2019, the application was allowed. Accordingly, the workman was further cross examined on behalf of the management. Vide order dated 31.08.2019, once again WE was closed and the matter was listed for management's evidence (ME).
MANAGEMENT'S EVIDENCE (ME)
7. The management has also led evidence in support of its contention. The management has examined three witnesses in its favour.
7.1 MW-1 Sh. Pradeep Vishwakarma is stated to be 'Regional Sales Manager' of the management company. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavits Ex. MW1/A and Ex. MW1/A1. He relied upon following documents:
i. Role clarification document Ex. MW1/1, ii. Copy of email dated 12.09.2014, 31.08.2014 and 21.08.2014 exchanged between the management company and the claimant Ex. MW1/2(colly), iii. Print out of information pertaining to the company namely Wrenitt Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Ex. MW1/3, iv. Photographs of the banner / name board of Shree Jeewan Pharmacy Ex. MW1/4, v. Documents for the months of July and August establishing that the claimant was working in managerial capacity as 'Area Sales Manager' with team of five professional service LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 6 of 19 representative namely Sh. Harsh Vardhan Rai, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Shobhit Sharma and Mr. Prakash Ranjan and they all were working and reporting directly to the claimant Ex. MW1/5 to Ex. MW1/13, vi. Expense-Sheet pertaining to the claimant for the month of August 2024 Ex. MW1/14.
7.2 MW-2 Sh. Malay Pradhan is stated to be working with the management company as 'Professional Service Representative' in Wintura division of the company. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW2/A. 7.3. MW-3 Sh. C.R. Ramakrishnan is stated to be a Consultant with the management company. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW3/A. 7.4 Vide order dated 15.02.2020, ME was closed as per statement of AR of the management.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Arguments have been advanced at length on behalf of both the parties. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the parties.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
9. Issue No.1: Whether the claimant was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act or whether he was working in managerial capacity and is within the exceptions enumerated therein?
OPP LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 7 of 19 9.1 It is admitted position of the parties that the designation of the claimant was 'Area Sales Manager'. The claimant has relied on appointment letter dated 01.02.2012 Ex.WW1/1, wherein designation of the claimant is mentioned as 'Area Sales Manager'. In the written statement, the management has also mentioned the designation of the claimant as 'Area Sales Manager'.
However, the plea of claimant is that he was not working in the managerial capacity and he was working as filed worker only and his appointment as 'Area Sales Manager' was only for the purpose of window dressing. He was not authorized to appoint anyone or to sign cheques etc. and as such he is covered by the definition of 'workman'.
On the other hand, plea of the management is that the claimant was working in managerial capacity as 'Area Sales Manager' and therefore, he does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under section 2(s) of the ID Act.
9.2 Section 2(s) of the ID Act, reads as follows:
"2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person--
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 8 of 19
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
9.3. A plain reading of section 2(s) indicates that the provisions of the section are in two parts. The first part defines 'workman'. The definition is inclusive. The second part excludes a person from the ambit of 'workman'.
9.4 The burden of proof lies upon the person who claims to be a workman that he is a 'workman' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act. Once the burden is discharged, the onus shifts upon the management to prove that the person falls within the exclusion clauses and hence, he is not a 'workman'.
9.5 It is not in dispute that the management is an 'industry' within the definition of section 2(j) of the ID Act. It is also not in dispute that the workman was in the employment of the management.
9.6. By clear averments in the statement of claim and by leading positive evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the claimant has discharged his initial burden of proof that he is a 'workman'.
9.7 Now, the onus has shifted upon the management to prove that the workman falls in the relevant exclusion clauses.
LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 9 of 199.8 During course of final arguments, the AR of management has emphasized that the monthly salary of the workman was more than Rs.10,000/- and his works were managerial and supervisory in nature and hence he is not qualified to be a 'workman'.
9.9 From the exclusion clauses of section 2(s), it is manifestly clear that mere designations such as 'manager' 'supervisor' etc. are not sufficient to exclude a person from the scope and ambit of the 'workman'. In order to prove that a person employed in an industry falls within the exclusion clauses, the management is required to prove that the person was employed mainly in the managerial or administrative capacity or he exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
In M/S. DCM Shri Ram Consolidate Ltd. vs B.K. Gupta & Ors. W.P.(C) 3705/2000 (Judgment dated 10.02.2015), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted as follows:
"22. It is also well settled principle of law that designation or name of the post is not material while dealing with the question of person being workman. The main duties the employee is performing is the criteria to determine whether he falls within category of workman in the I.D. Act. ...".
9.10 Adverting to facts of the case, it was never defence of the management that the workman was performing supervisory function and his monthly salary exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. No question was put up to the workman during his cross-examination regarding his supervisory function. Further, no evidence has been led by the management to prove supervisory function of the workman. Testimonies of the management's witnesses are silent about LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 10 of 19 supervisory function of the workman. The management has taken this defence for the first-time during course of final arguments.
Since the defense of supervisory function is beyond pleading of the management and same is not issue for determination, the management can not be permitted to raise this defence at the stage of final arguments.
9.11 Materials on record reveal that the workman was not performing mainly managerial function. His assignments included field duty as well.
In para No. 5 of evidence by way of affidavit Ex. EX. MW1/A, MW1 Sh. Pradeep Vishwakarma has stated as follows:
"That I say that since Mr. Amit Kumar Jain was the Area Manager (Sales), therefore, as a part of his work assignments and duties and in order to motivate and encourage his team members, he was expected to work in the field also."
During cross-examination also, MW1 Sh. Pradeep Vishwakarma and MW2 Sh. Malay Pradhan have deposed that the workman was doing field work. MW1 has stated as follows:
"It is correct that the entire team of workman including himself used to go for field work."
MW2 has stated as follows:
"Me and my team used to report to the workman, who in turn, used to report to Sh. Pradeep Vishwakarma, RSM. All of us used to go for field work in Wintura Division."
9.12 Though the evidence on record suggests that the claimant (workman) was not exclusively doing managerial work, the management has failed to prove that the main work of the claimant was managerial.
LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 11 of 199.13 Since the management has failed to discharge the onus, the claimant is held to be a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act. The issue is accordingly decided.
10. Issue No.2: Whether the courts at Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction? OPM 10.1 The management has pleaded that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and the courts at Hyderabad only have jurisdiction. To fortify its plea, the management has relied on the appointment letter Ex.WW1/1.
In support of her arguments, the AR of management has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swastik Gas P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2013 9 SCC 32.
On the other hand, the workman has contended that the management is having its office at Delhi and as such this court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute.
10.2 In Swastik Gas P. Ltd (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a matter pertaining to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It has been observed that where a contract specifies jurisdiction of the courts at a particular place and such courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, an inference may be drawn that the parties intended to exclude jurisdiction of all other courts. It has been noted as follows:
"Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the courts at a particular place and such courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, we think that an inference may be drawn that parties intended to exclude all other courts. A clause like this is not hit LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 12 of 19 by Section 23 of the Contract Act at all. Such clause is neither forbidden by law nor it is against the public policy. It does not offend Section 28 of the Contract Act in any manner."
10.3 It may be noted here that the general rule of determination of territorial jurisdiction, as applicable to commercial transactions, are not strictly applicable to the industrial disputes. As such, Swastik Gas P. Ltd (supra) is distinguishable on facts. Situs of place of employment of the workman is determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction upon a labour court. Further, the right to approach a legal forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the whole, or apart, of the cause of action arises is fundamental.
In the case of J Balaji Vs. The Hindu New Delhi and Anr. LPA No.640/2022, a division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"Though the ID Act does not make any reference to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, however, situs of the place of employment of a workman would be a determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction upon a Labour Court for deciding a labour dispute raised by a workman. It has been held by Courts time and again in a catena of judgments that the situs of employment of the workman is a significant factor to decide territorial jurisdiction." (para no.17) In Business Bhaskar Newspaper Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. LPA No.182/2022, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted as follows:
"38. The right to approach a legal forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the whole, or apart, of the cause of action arises, is elemental to the right to avail legal remedies. The cause of action, classically, encompasses the entire mass of facts which the petitioner before the Court would have to prove to succeed in his petition, and the most appropriate, and apposite, forum, before which this exercise can meaningfully be undertaken, would be the Court having territorial dominion over the said facts. Save and except where there is a statutory interdiction in LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 13 of 19 approaching such a forum, or the statute specifically prescribes the forum which is to be approached, and which is not the forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the whole or part of the cause of action has arisen, the right to approach the forum, or the Court, within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises in whole or in part, is fundamental. It cannot be compromised. It does not need to be statutorily elucidated and, in the absence, as already noted, of any statutory interdict in that regard to the contrary, is always available."
(Emphasis supplied) 10.4 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation in favor of the workmen. Any agreement that curtails territorial jurisdiction of a court, in case of an industrial dispute, goes against the public policy of ensuring access to justice. Such agreements are invalid as they restrict a workman's right to a fair resolution of dispute and they are hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act.
10.5 As per para no.6 and 31 of Annexure-II of the appointment letter, any dispute arising of and/or related to services of the claimant shall be subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction only.
Para no.6 of Annexure-II reads as follows:
"6. Any dispute arising out of and/or related to your services with the company shall be subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction only."
Para no.31 of Annexure-II reads as follows:
"31. All disputes arising out of this Letter of Appointment will be subject to the jurisdiction of courts of Hyderabad."
10.6 As per appointment letter Ex.WW1/1, the workman was offered employment as 'Area Sales Manager' in Delhi HQ in Wintura Division of the management company. At the time of his termination, the workman was working in Delhi. The termination LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 14 of 19 order Ex.WW1/C finds mention Delhi address of the workman. The industrial dispute emanates from the termination of the workman.
10.7 Since the situs of place of employment of the workman was Delhi and termination of his services was affected in Delhi, the cause of action arose in Delhi only. Hence, jurisdiction of the labour courts in Delhi can not be taken away by inserting an exclusion clause in the appointment letter. Such a clause is against public policy and same is hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act.
10.8 In view of above discussion, a clause in the appointment letter Ex.WW1/1 which restricts the industrial dispute to the territorial jurisdiction of courts at Hyderabad only, is held to be invalid and not enforceable. Thus, there is no substance in the objection of the management regarding territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is held that this court has requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the workman. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is decided against the management.
11. Issue No.3: Whether the workman was negligent and if so, whether an enquiry has been initiated? OPM The burden was upon the management to prove that the workman was negligent in discharge of his duty. However, the management has not led any positive evidence to discharge the burden. Mere bald assertion of facts and self-serving affidavits are not sufficient to discharge the burden. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is decided against the management.
LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 15 of 1912. Issue No.4: Whether the services of workman have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably? OPW There is no dispute that the services of the workman were terminated by the management. In para No.4 of the written statement, the management has admitted that the services of the workman were terminated. The management has stated that the services of the workman were terminated as per due procedure.
12.1 The management has terminated the services of the workman on the ground of negligence and misconduct. The management has alleged insubordination on the part of the workman. However, it has failed to prove the misconduct. There is nothing on record to suggest that any enquiry was conducted by the management to ascertain the alleged misconduct on the part of the workman. Moreover, no evidence was led in the court to prove the misconduct. It appears that the management has terminated the services of the workman without following the principles of natural justice.
12.2 Since the management has failed to prove misconduct on the part of the workman and issue no.3 has been decided against the management, termination of the workman is held illegal and unjustified. The issue is decided accordingly.
13. Issue No.5: Relief.
Materials on record reveal that the claimant has not approached the court with clean hands and has made false statement on oath.
LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 16 of 1913.1 The claimant has claimed unemployment since 04.02.2015 i.e. from the date of termination of his service.
The statement of claim is dated 28.06.2016. Affidavit in support of the statement of claim is also dated 28.06.2016. The claim was registered on 05.07.2016.
Evidence by way of affidavit of the claimant/workman Ex.WW1/A is dated 28.03.2017. The affidavit was tendered in evidence on 10.10.2017.
In para no.14 of the statement of claim, the workman has stated as follows:
"That since 04.02.2015 the workman is unemployed and is suffering a lot of mental pain, agony and financial turmoil rather he and his family members consisting of his wife and two minor kids rather they are on the verge of semi-starvation"
In paragraph no. 15 of the affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the claimant has reiterated the averments in para no.14 of the statement of claim. He has stated as follows:
"I say that since 04.02.2015 I am unemployed and is suffering a lot of mental pain, agony and financial turmoil rather I and my family members consisting of my wife and two minor kids rather they are on the verge of semi-starvation"
From the above noted facts, it is apparent that there is no change in the stance of the claimant till his examination in chief by way of affidavit on 10.10.2017, so far as his claim of unemployment is concerned. However, his testimony recorded in the court belies his own claim. During his cross examination dated 31.08.2019, the claimant / workman (WW-1) has made following admissions:
• 'It is correct that I had formed a company in the name of "Wrenitt Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd." in or around May or June 2015 in which I and my wife Ms. Jyoti Jain were directors.' LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 17 of 19 • 'I am (sic 'was') not carrying on any business or trading at that time from 2015 till 2017 other than the company Wrenitt. I am not doing any job since the year 2017 also. I am running a Chemist Shop since December 2017 in the name of Shree Jeevan Pharmacy in partnership with Shree Jeevan Hospital itself.' • 'It is correct that I am working as registered pharmacies (sic 'pharmacist') with Shree Jeevan Pharmacy.' • 'Document Ex. WW1/D12 is the photography showing sign board of my pharmacy.
13.2 Ex. MW1/3 is print out of information pertaining to the company namely Wrenitt Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. As per Ex.MW1/3, the company was incorporated on 15 May 2015.
Registration number of the company is 83210 and its Corporate Identification Number (CIN) is U24295GJ2015PTC083210. Amit Kumar Jain is one of the directors of the company. His DIN No. is 07048064. His date of appointment as director is 15 May 2015.
Ex. MW1/3 was put in evidence by MW-1 Sh. Pradeep Vishwakarma. However, MW1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the workman with reference to Ex. MW1/3. Thus, Ex. MW1/3 is deemed admitted by the workman.
13.3 From the above discussed facts, it is evident that the claimant/workman is not unemployed as claimed by him. He is gainfully employed after termination of his services by the management.
13.4 Since the claimant/workman is gainfully employed, it would not be appropriate to grant relief of reinstatement. Further, the claimant/workman is not entitled to back wages as his claim for LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 18 of 19 unemployment has been found to be false. He can not be rewarded for making false statement on oath. Accordingly, he is held not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is decided.
14. In the light of above findings, the statement of claim is disposed of.
15. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.
16. A copy of the award be sent to the Competent Authority/ Govt. of NCT of Delhi for publication as per rules.
Digitally signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH
Announced in the open court SAURABH Date:
2025.08.30
today i.e. 30.08.2025 05:20:11 +0530
(SUJIT SAURABH)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX
Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi
30.08.2025
LID No.818/16 Amit Kumar Jain Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Page 19 of 19