Delhi District Court
Sh. Lakhan Singh vs Unknown on 18 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR: POLCV:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
ID No. 53/2000
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0001982000
In the matter of:
1. Sh. Lakhan Singh,
2. Sh. Abdul Hussain,
3. Sh. Kailash Chauhan,
4. Sh. Kashim Ali,
5. Sh. Siraj,
6. Sh. Ramu Prasad,
7. Sh. Sanjay,
8. Sh. Prabhu,
9. Sh. Ghuran,
10. Sh. Raju,
11. Sh. Mohd. Ashraf and
12. Smt. Pushpa Devi
All Through:
Sanyukt Audyogik Mazdoor Union,
Block A/2, Jawahar Camp,
Lakkar Mandi, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi15.
........ Workmen
VERSUS:
M/s. Bazaar,
A14/2, Mayapuri,
Phase1, New Delhi64.
........ Management
Date of Institution : 29.01.2000
Date of reserving award : 18.04.2012
Date of pronouncement : 18.04.2012
ID No. 53/2000 1/6
AWARD
A reference no. F. 24 (4961)/99Lab./38387 dated 05.01.2000
was sent by Sh. Satish Gathwal, Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the NCT of
Delhi for adjudication and disposal of the industrial dispute between
aforesaid workmen and the management by formulating the following
issue:
"Whether the services of Sh. Lakhan Singh, Abdul
Hussain, Kailash Chauhan, Kasim Ali, Siraj, Ramu
Prasad, Sanjay, Prabhu, Ghuran, Raju, Mohd. Ashraf
and Smt. Pushpa Devi have been terminated illegally
and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so,
to what relief are they entitled and what directions
are necessary in this respect?"
2. A notice of aforesaid reference was sent to the workmen.
Only six workmen namely Lakhan Singh, Kailash, Kasim Ali, Siraj, Ghuran
and Smt. Pushpa filed their statement of claim stating that they were
working with the management for a long time diligently but the
management was not providing legal facilities such as payment of
minimum wages, annual leaves, casual leaves, ESI/PF, payslip etc. The
workmen were pressing their demands orally due to which, the
management got annoyed and terminated their services w.e.f. 20.05.1999
retaining their earned wages for the month of April and May, 1999. They
sent a legal notice dated 21.05.1999 to the management through their
Union but the management did not reply the same. The management
terminated their services without any notice and in violation of section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They filed a complaint before the
ID No. 53/2000 2/6
Conciliation Officer but the management did not participate in the
conciliation proceedings hence, the same failed. The management had got
signed some blank papers and vouchers from them to use the same for their
benefits. A request is made that directions may be given to the management
to reinstate their services with full back wages and continuity of service.
3. A notice of the aforesaid statement of claim was sent to the
management. The management contested the case of aforesaid workmen
by filing written statement stating that the management has already paid
their earned wages for the month of April and May, 1999 and this fact has
already been recorded by the Conciliation Officer at Karampura, New Delhi
on 21.07.1999. The management was providing legal facilities to the
workmen. The management has already made the payment of full and
final settlement of the claims of the workmen and there is nothing due
against the management. The management never terminated the services
of the workmen. They had left their services of their own free will after full
and final settlement. A request is made that claim filed by the workmen
may be dismissed as the same is without any cause of action and workmen
are not entitled to any relief from this court.
4. The workmen filed rejoinder to restress the same facts as stated
by them in their statement of claim.
5. On 13.07.2001 after hearing both the parties on the point of
issues and after perusal of record, following issues were framed for
adjudication and disposal of the reference:
ID No. 53/2000 3/6
(1) Whether the workmen left the services of
the management of their own free will?OPM
(2) Whether workman Sh. Sanjay, Prabhu
and Mohd. Ashraf are still working with the
management?OPM
(3) As per the terms of reference.
6. On 05.02.2004 some of the workmen filed their affidavits to
lead workman evidence. On the same day, an application seeking
amendment in WS was filed by the management which was allowed on
24.09.2004 and on 25.04.2005 amended WS was filed.
7. Fresh rejoinder was filed by the workmen restressing the same
facts as stated by them in their statement of claim.
8. Thereafter, fresh issues were framed on 02.08.2005 as under:
(1) Whether there existed relationship of
workmen and management between the
alleged claimants and the respondent?
(2) Whether the workman Sh. Lakhan Singh and other claimant have settled his claim fully and finally?
(3) Whether the claim of any claimant is premature?
(4) Whether Sh. Sanjay, Prabhu and Mohd.
Ashraf are still working with the management? If so, its effect?
(5) Relief in terms of reference.
8. The workmen Lakhan Singh, Kasim Ali, Kailash, Pushpa and Ghuran led their evidence. Thereafter, workmen evidence was closed on ID No. 53/2000 4/6 10.10.2007 and the case was fixed for leading management evidence, however on 30.07.2008 a settlement was recorded between the parties and it was agreed that management will pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/ to Ghuran, Rs. 5,000/ to Pushpa and Rs. 11,000/ to workman Ram Lakhan but this settlement was a conditional settlement as management put a condition that case against all other workmen may be withdrawn by AR for the workmen.
9. On 06.08.2008 AR for the workmen got recorded his statement that other workmen are not approaching him and they are not in touch therefore, appropriate order may be passed. On 06.08.2008 the payment of Rs. 7,000/ was made by the management to workman Ghuran as per the statement recorded on 30.07.2008. Other workmen Pushpa and Ram Lakhan did not appear in the court to take the payment of settlement amount. On 20.05.2009 the management was directed to deposit the drafts in the name of workmen Pushpa and Ram Lakhan but, the management did not comply that order. Workmen also did not appear, thereafter, the case was adjourned several times since 20.05.2009 for appearance of workman and further proceedings into the matter but none of the workmen appeared. Therefore, it seems that the matter has been settled with workman Ghuran only. The workmen Pushpa and Ram Lakhan did not appear to take their settlement amount. Their AR has stated that they are not approaching him and they have also stopped appearing in the court. In these circumstances, it seems that no relief can be awarded to them. Other workmen Kailash, Kasim Ali and Siraj did not lead their evidence. Hence, ID No. 53/2000 5/6 they are not entitled to any relief. The workman Ram Prasad, Abdul Hussian, Sanjay, Prabhu, Raju and Mohd. Ashraf did not sign statement of claim and never appeared in the court. Hence, no relief can be given to them also.
10. In view of above discussion, a settlement award is passed in respect of workman Ghuran only and no relief award is passed against all other workmen.
A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (CHANDRA SHEKHAR)
ON 18th APRIL, 2012 POLCV:KKD:DELHI:
18.04.2012
ID No. 53/2000 6/6