Delhi District Court
Shakuntala - W/O Jay Ram vs M/S. Pieco International Engineering ... on 2 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
PILOT COURT/POLCXVII, ROOM NO. 22 :
KKD COURTS :DELHI
LIR 5435/16.
Unique No. 02402C0254912010.
In the Matter of :
Sh. Ramesh Kumar Saxena
S/o Shri Jairam, C/o Delhi Engineering Karamchari Sangh,
T78, Milan Market, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi110015.
(Through LRs since deceased)
1.Shakuntala - W/o Jay Ram
2. Shashi Saxena - W/o late Sh. Ramesh Chand Saxena.
3. Pooja Saxena - D/o late Ramesh Chand Saxena.
4. Deepak Saxena - S/o late Ramesh Chand Saxena.
All R/o H. No. C1/139, BlockC, Pkt.1, Rohini, Delhi85.
..............Workman Versus M/s. Pieco International Engineering Company, M15, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi110015.
..............Management
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.09.2010.
DATE OF RECEIVING IN THIS COURT : 12.10.2017.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 31.10.2017.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 02.11.2017.
A W A R D :
1. Vide Order No.F.3(295)Ref./WD/LAB/3855 dated 21.05.10 issued by Government of NCT of Delhi, a reference was sent to LIR 5435/16. 1/9 Labour CourtX with the following terms: "Whether the workman Sh. Ramesh Kumar Saxena S/o Sh. Jairam have left the job on his its own after taking his full and final from the management or his service has been illegally and / or unjustifiably terminated by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
However, on 31.10.17, it was transferred to this Court as per order of Secretary Labour, GNCT of Delhi dated 27.09.17.
2. Claimants' case is that he had started working with the management as Karigar w.e.f 1996 at the last drawn salary of Rs.6,300/ per month. He was not granted legal benefits like appointment letter, bonus, leave, attendance card, leave encashment and pay slip etc. When the management failed to get rid of him, his services was terminated on 27.05.2009 without chargesheet, domestic enquiry, notice and without tendering notice pay and retrenchment compensation and withheld earned wages of April and May, 2007. A Labour Inspector had visited the establishment of the management on his complaint dated 17.06.2009 to Assistant Labour Commissioner and advised the management to take him back on duty, but there was flat refusal. His signatures were obtained on blank papers and vouchers at the time of joining and during service LIR 5435/16. 2/9 period. He had signed those papers as he was badly in the need of employment. Demand notice dated 30.06.2009 went unreplied. Several employees junior to him were still working when his service was terminated and hence, the management had violated Section 25 G of the I.D. Act, 1947. No one appeared before the Conciliation Officer on his statement of claim and hence, the matter remained unsolved. He is jobless since termination of service.
3. It has been denied in written statement that claimant was working with it on the post of Karigar since 1996 at the last drawn salary of Rs.6,300/ per month. He had worked only till May, 2009 and thereafter, took full and final settlement amount of Rs.90,000/ on 01.06.2009 and in this way, left the job voluntarily. He was very negligent in work and that is why several warnings were given to him to which he tendered apology. All legal facilities were provided to him. His signatures were never obtained on blank papers or vouchers at any point of time. He never sent any demand notice.
4. Following issues were framed on 11.01.12:
1. As per terms of reference.
2. Relief.
5. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant tendered his LIR 5435/16. 3/9 affidavit in evidence as Ex. WW1/A mentioning all the facts stated in the statement of claim. He relied upon following documents: I. Ex.WW1/1 is complaint dated 17.06.2009 to Assistant Labour Commissioner through union.
II. Ex. WW1/2 dated 08.09.2009 is Labour Inspector report. III. Ex. WW1/3 dated 30.06.2009 is demand notice. IV. Ex. WW1/4 & Ex. WW1/5 are postal and courier receipts vide which demand notice was sent to the management. V. Ex. WW1/6 is statement of claim before Conciliation Officer.
VI. Mark A is his identity card issued by ESIC. VII. Mark B is EPFC statement issued by management regarding deposit in his account.
In cross examination, following document was put to him:
1. Mark X is full and final settlement receipt.
6. The management examined two witnesses.
MW1 Sh. Hari Shankar Debnath is Office Assistant of the management. He deposed that claimant was working as a Painter and had taken a sum of Rs.90,000/ in cash from the management on 01.06.2009 towards his full and final settlement, in his presence and in the presence of other person, namely, Pawan Sehgal. While executing the receipt, all these three persons had signed the receipt Ex. MW1/1.
MW2 Sh. N.K. Verma is the proprietor of the management.
LIR 5435/16. 4/9He deposed about full and final receipt of Rs.90,000/ on 01.06.2009 by claimant in the presence of MW1 and Sh. Sehgal.
7. During pendency of case, claimant expired on 23.03.2015. Vide order dated 04.03.17, his following LRs were impleaded :
i. Smt. Shakuntla - mother.
ii. Smt. Shashi Saxena - wife.
iii.Ms. Pooja Saxena - daughter.
iv. Sh. Deepak Saxena - son.
8. None appeared for both parties to argue the case.
Issue No. 1.
9. This issue comprises of two parts. The first part is regarding full and final settlement and the second is for illegal termination.
10. It is mentioned in statement of claim and deposed by WW1 that he had joined the management in 1996 on the post of Karigar at the last drawn salary of Rs.6,300/ per month. His service was terminated illegally on 27.05.2009.
The defence as mentioned written statement is that the claimant had taken full and final amount of Rs.90,000/ on LIR 5435/16. 5/9 01.06.2009 by executing full and final receipt Ex. MW1/1 (also mark X).
11. To prove that the full and final receipt Ex.MW1/1 has been signed by the claimant, the management examined MW1 Sh. Hari Shankar Debnath, Office Assistant. He deposed that claimant had executed that receipt on 01.06.2009 in his presence and in the presence of another person, namely, Pawan Sehgal who was maintaining the ESI and PF record of the management. The photostate copy Mark X of the receipt was put to the claimant in cross examination and he replied that he had not executed the receipt in favour of the management. He was not specifically asked whether the receipt was bearing his signatures on revenue stamp or not. The management did not examine any Handwriting Expert to prove that the receipt was bearing the signature of the claimant on revenue stamp. MW1 Sh. Hari Shankar Debnath deposed in examinationin chief that the receipt was bearing signatures of two witnesses, namely, Pawan Sehgal and himself. In cross examination, he deposed that the receipt was executed in the presence of proprietor Sh. N.K. Verma also. Perusal of the receipt shows that it is not bearing signatures of Sh. Verma. Sh. N.K. Verma did not depose anywhere in examinationinchief and cross examination that he had ever signed that receipt. The management did not place on record LIR 5435/16. 6/9 any document to show that the witness No. 1 Sh. Pawan Sehgal to receipt, was employee of the management. MW1 deposed that Sh. Pawan Sehgal is working with the management. It means that Sh. Pawan Sehgal was still working with the management on the date of deposition of MW1. Sh. Sehgal was not produced in the witness box by the management, reason best known to it. The name of the management is also not mentioned in the receipt. The date of execution is also missing. Further perusal shows that the handwriting is by two kinds of pens. All the contents except the details of MW1 are mentioned with ink pen whereas the details of MW1 are mentioned with ball pen. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the signatures of MW1 might have been obtained quite later on that receipt as there was sufficient space under the detail of witness No. 1 Sh. Pawan Sehgal. The management did not place on record any application etc. moved by claimant for paying him full and final settlement amount. His resignation has also not been produced. It has been admitted by MW2 that claimant had started working with the management and had worked till 27.05.2009. Claimant's case is that he joined the management in 1996. In this way, he was associated with the management for about 12 years. A 12 years employee, unless he finds job of higher scale, would not leave the present job easily. Due to these reasons, the full and final receipt Ex. MW1/1 is not being believed. The management did not place on LIR 5435/16. 7/9 record any other document to prove full and final settlement. Hence, it is held that claimant had not taken any full and final amount from the management on 01.06.2009.
12. It is the consistent stand of the claimant that his service was terminated without notice and without tendering notice pay and retrenchment compensation. It is not the case of any party that claimant was guilty of any misconduct. So, there was no occasion for any chargesheet and enquiry. The management did not place on record that it had given notice before termination of claimant. So, termination of service of claimant in that manner is totally in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. This issue is decided in favour of claimant and against management.
Issue No. 2.
13. Claimant has already died and his LRs have been impleaded and it rules out relief of reinstatement. Regarding joining the management in 1996, the claimant is corroborated by EPFS receipts Mark B for the year 1996 1997, 1997 - 1998 and 1998 - 1999. Moreover, it has been admitted by MW2 that claimant had started working with it in 1997. His service had come to an end by way of termination on 27.05.2009. His last drawn salary was Rs.6,300/ per month.
LIR 5435/16. 8/914. Taking into account the length of service and last drawn salary, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,25,000/ (Rupees Three Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand Only) is granted to his LRs. The management is directed to pay the said amount to LRs of claimant within one month from the date of publication of the award, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on it @ 9% per annum from today till its realization. Parties to bear their own costs. Award is passed accordingly.
15. The requisite number of copies of the award be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for its publication.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated to Sr. P.A.& announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 02.11.2017. PILOT COURT/POLCXVII KKD COURTS, DELHI.
Digitally signed by UMED SINGHUMED GREWAL
SINGH Location: Delhi
Date:
GREWAL
LIR 5435/16.
2017.11.03
9/9
16:29:45
+0530