Delhi District Court
Through vs M/S Skygourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd on 16 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - XIX
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No: 746/16
Sh. Vijay Singh Bhakuni
S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh
R/o: RZF775/20B, Gali no. 15,
Raj Nagar - II, Palam, New Delhi - 110077
Through
Airport Employees Union (Regd.)
B.T.Ranadive Bhawan,
13A, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi - 110002
....CLAIMANT
VERSUS
M/s Skygourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd.
Indira Gandhi International Airport Complex
Office: International Airport Approach Road,
New Delhi - 110037
Through its General Manager
....MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 08.10.2012
Date of passing the Award : 16.10.2018
A W A R D
1.A reference dated 31.07.2012 was received for adjudication by this Court which was sent by Dy. Labour Commissioner, under Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of I.D.Act, read with Notification no. F.1/31/616/ESTT./2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009, on a complaint filed by Claimant against the LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8 Management, wherein the following reference was to be answered: "Whether the dismissal of Sh. Vijay Singh Bhakuni S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh by the management vide orders/ letter dated 09.06.2011 is illegal/ and or unjustified, and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?"
2. Notice of reference was issued to Claimant after which the Claimant had appeared and filed his statement of claim, claiming therein, that he was appointed as Team Member 'C' (Operation) with effect from 18.06.2005 on the initial salary of Rs. 2,900/ per month. It was further stated that initially he was pointed on probation for a period of six months. However, it was illegally mentioned in his appointment letter that he was appointed for a fixed term employment of two years, whereas, he was to be retained in service against a permanent post after completion of his probation period.
It was further stated that the management was in Air Catering business and was preparing meals and breakfast and supplying them to air flights. It was further stated that workman used to work for eight hours a day and was made to work in three different shifts. It was further stated that vide letter dated 18.06.2005, he was given performance linked incentive of Rs. 100/. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.04.2006, the total emoluments of workman were increased to Rs. 3,000/ and his performance based incentive LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8 were revised to Rs. 700/ from Rs. 267. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.04.2007 the total emoluments of workman were increased to Rs. 3,600/ as he was given HRA and conveyance allowance and his performance linked incentive was revised to Rs. 900/ from Rs. 700/. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.04.2008, the total emoluments of workman were increased to Rs. 4,850/ as his HRA and conveyance allowance were increased and his performance based incentive was also revised to Rs. 1,200/ from Rs. 900/. It was further stated that the Management had also appreciated the efforts put in by the workman on 17.04.2008 and a letter of appreciation dated 24.04.2008 was also issued to him by the Management.
It was further stated that employees of Sky Gourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd had formed Workers Union and had informed the Management about the same in October 2009 and the Union had also raised an Industrial Dispute no. 247 of 2010 for regularization of employees of Management. The management had threatened him either to stop the Union activities or to face termination of services.
It was further stated that vide letter dated 09.06.2011, the claimant was informed that the Inquiry Officer had found him guilty of charges leveled against him and no inquiry report or charge sheet were enclosed with letter dated 09.06.2011. It was further stated that the management had LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8 violated the principles of natural justice in holding the inquiry without supplying him the copy of inquiry report or charge sheet or any opportunity to defend himself.
It was further stated that the workman was unemployed since the date of his termination and had to support his widow mother, wife and a child. Hence, a prayer was made for passing of an Award directing the Management to reinstate the workman with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
3. Notice of the statement of claim was sent to the Management which was duly served upon it and Management had also appeared and contested the statement of claim on merits by filing its WS, wherein, it was contended that the Claimant was appointed on fixed term basis for a period 2½ years vide appointment letter dated 18.06.2005 and in terms of his contract of employment, his fixed term appointment was to come to an automatic end on the expiry of his fixed term employment.
Regarding other paras which were either not specifically admitted or essentially and purely constituted matter of record, same were denied by it as incorrect.
4. Vide order dated 29.08.2014, ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the following issues : LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8
1. Whether the workman was dismissed from service after a valid and proper departmental inquiry? O.P.M
2. As per terms of reference.
3. Relief.
Vide order dated 14.11.2014, ld. Predecessor had reframed the issue no. 1 as under
1. Whether a proper and valid departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman as per principles of natural justice? O.P.W. This issue was treated as a preliminary issue and parties were directed to adduce their respective evidences on this issue alone.
6. In order to discharge the onus of proving the issues, the workman had appeared as his own witness and filed in evidence, his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A wherein he had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the following documents :
1. photocopy of appointment letter dated 18.06.2005 is Ex.WW1/1;
2. photocopy of the letter dated 18.06.2005 granting performance linked incentive to workman is Ex. WW1/2;
3. photocopy of the increment letter dated 01.04.2006 is Ex.WW1/3;LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8
4. photocopy of increment letter dated 01.04.2007 is Ex. WW1/4;
5. photocopy of the promotion and increment letter dated 01.04.2008 is Ex.WW1/5;
6. photocopy of the appreciation letter dated 24.04.2008 is Ex. WW1/6;
7. photocopy of the dismissal letter dated 09.06.2011 is Ex.WW1/7;
After tendering of his affidavit in evidence, the workman had not appeared in the Court for his cross examination and sought adjournments on one ground or the other.
Perusal of the record reveals that on 23.02.2016, the workman had absented himself and matter was posted for workman's evidence on 19.07.2016. Perusal of the record further reveals that on 19.07.2016, the members of Bar were stated to be abstaining from work and the matter was again adjourned for 21.10.2016. On 21.10.2016. management had moved an application seeking direction to the workman to file fresh affidavit and the said application was disposed of on 28.02.2017 and workman was directed to file fresh affidavit in his evidence by the ld. Predecessor of this Court and the matter was listed for workman's evidence on 07.07.2017 when the workman had again failed to appear. On 26.07.2017 again none had appeared and the matter was adjourned for 02.11.2017, on which date the workman had filed his fresh affidavit. On 19.12.2017, again the workman LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8 had filed the fresh affidavit and the matter was adjourned for his cross examination for 09.02.2018, which was again adjourned for 02.04.2018. On 02.04.2018, again at joint request of both parties citing different reasons, matter was adjourned for workman's evidence as last and final opportunity for 09.07.2018. On 09.07.2018 though last and final opportunity was given, yet, the matter was again adjourned at the specific request of ld. AR for workman as he wanted to inspect the record before tendering the affidavit in evidence.
Vide detailed order dated 29.09.2018, this Court had specifically observed the conduct of workman qua leading his evidence and closed the workman's evidence. Since the Management did not want to lead evidence in the present matter, the matter was adjourned for arguments and orders for today.
The workman despite being granted numerous opportunities had failed to appear before the Court for his cross examination and hence had failed to prove the issue in his favour. Accordingly, the preliminary issue as framed vide order dated 29.08.2014 and reframed vide order dated 14.11.2014 stands unproved. Statement of claim as filed by claimant thus stands dismissed without calling upon any evidence on other issues as all the aforesaid issues are solely dependent upon this preliminary issue. Other issues LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8 are also accordingly answered and decided in favour of management and against the workman. Reference also stands answered accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the Labour Commissioner for publication. Case file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 16.10.2018 Digitally signed by LOKESH LOKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2018.10.22 SHARMA 16:19:12 +0530 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE PRESIDING OFFICER - LABOUR COURT XIX DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI LIR No: 746/16 Page 8 of 8