Delhi District Court
By This Award vs Presiding Officer on 6 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-01, ROUSE AVENUE COURT, D.D.U.
MARG, NEW DELHI.
POIT No. 730/16
Workman:
Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Shri Hans Raj Sharma
R/o 151, SFS, DDA Flats,
6/3, Naseer Pur, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110045.
Versus
Management:
M/s Taj Palace Hotel,
2, Sardar Patel marg,
Diplomatic Enclave,
New Delhi-110021.
Date of Institution : 29.03.2014
Date of Assignment to this court : 15.04.2023
Date of Arguments : 01.07.2023
Date of Award : 06.07.2023
AWAR D
1. By this award, I shall dispose of the reference sent by the Dy.
Labour Commissioner (District New Delhi), Labour Department,
Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi arising between the
parties named above to this court vide notification No.
F.26(18)/Lab/PW/ID/NDD/2013/94, dated 14.03.2014 with the
following terms of reference:-
POIT No. 73016 Page No. 1/20
"Whether the workman Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, S/o
Late Shri Hans Raj Sharma is entitled to be
superannuated at the age of 55 years in accordance with
his letter of appointment or he is entitled to be
superannuated at the age of 58 years in terms of Model
Standing Orders applicable to the establishment; and if
so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this effect?"
2. Notice of reference was sent to the parties. Upon service, claim
was filed by workmen thereby pleadings his case to the effect that he
was taken in the employment of management vide letter of
appointment dated 20.12.1978 as an Assistant Steward and age of
retirement reads in same as 55 years in para 5 of said letter. It is
stated that Model Standing Order framed under the provisions of
Industrial Employment Act, 1946 provides the age of retirement
/superannuation as 58 years and the provisions of Industrial
Employment Act 1946 do apply to the establishment of respondent
management. It is averred that workman retired from the services of the management prematurely by three years and retirement of workman at the age of 55 years is void, illegal, unjustified and needs to be corrected.
3. It is stated that workman filed an application before Labour cum Conciliation Officer, Office of Deputy Labour Commissioner and thus notice of same was sent to management who did present themselves before Conciliation officer but no settlement could arrive at between the parties and thus Conciliation Officer gave his report to Appropriate Government. Thereafter, Appropriate Government POIT No. 73016 Page No. 2/20 referred the matter to this Tribunal.
4. It is stated that applicant workman was retired from services of the management w.e.f. from 31.08.2012 vide letter dated 12.06.2012 whereas there has been increase in the age of retirement from 55 to 58 years consequent upon the amendment in the Industrial Employment Act vide notification dated 12.09.1984 and as such, his retirement at the age of 55 years is void, illegal, unjustified and needs to be correct. Hence, present claim was filed by workman.
5. Written statement filed by the management, wherein preliminary objections were taken to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present claim and the claimant is not workman under the umbrella of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also stated that claim has not been espoused by substantial number of workmen. It was also stated that claimant retired from the services of the management in accordance with established service conditions, past practice, customs prevalent in management.
6. On merits, it was stated that claimant was appointed with management as per terms and conditions envisaged in his appointment letter dated 20.12.1978 and as per same, he admitted that he would be governed by existing rules and regulations of management that may be in force from time to time. It was stated that Industrial Employment Act 1946 is not applicable to the employees of management herein in view of their specific rules and regulations governing the service conditions of their employees, duly agreed upon and acquiesced by their employees. It is also stated that retirement does not snatch the right of a person to his livelihood, it POIT No. 73016 Page No. 3/20 merely restricts the right of the employee to hold the office for a stated number of years and his requirement/misplaced sympathy sought by him cannot change the rules and regulations applicable to him and similarly situated employees in the management. Rest of the contentions of the statement of claim more or less were denied and it was prayed that reference may be answered in favour of management.
7. Rejoinder was filed by the workman, wherein all objections raised in the preliminary objections have been denied and the contentions made in the statement of claim are reiterated and affirmed.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 11.09.2014:-
1. Whether claimant is workman as defined under section 2 (s) Industrial Disputes Act?OPW
2. Whether the present claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Union?OPW
3. Whether present dispute is an Industrial Disputes as defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act?OPW
4. As per terms of reference.
9. To prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.WW1/A and he also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/8. Sh. Subhash Kant Jha was examined as WW-2 and he relied upon Ex. WW-2/1 and WW-2/2. After cross-examination of above witnesses, W.E. was closed.
POIT No. 73016 Page No. 4/2010. In defence, management produced Sh. Ramesh Shokeen as MW-1 and he also relied upon some documents in support of his case. After his cross-examination, M.E. was closed.
11. I have heard the arguments of the parties and gone through the record. My issue-wise findings are given below:-
12. Issue no. 1. Whether claimant is workman as defined under section 2 (s) Industrial Disputes Act?OPW and Issue No. 3. Whether present dispute is an Industrial Disputes as defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act?OPW :-
13. The onus to prove both these issues was on the workman.
14. Now to analyse the facts emerged in course of trial, it is important to examine the observations made by the different courts, how to determine who would be the workman in terms of ID Act, to justify him/her to invoke jurisdiction of the authorities/court constituted in this regard in terms of mandate of statute. To begin with, who would be workman in terms of ID Act, we need to refer to Section 2(s) of ID Act, that defines who shall be Workman to invoke jurisdiction under ID Act, which reads as under:
"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-
1) Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the POIT No. 73016 Page No. 5/20 Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950 or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
2) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
3) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative Capacity; or
4) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred 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.
15. Reliance is placed upon judgment titled as Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi and Anr reported at 1976 ILR 1 DL 565, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "Trial Court should adopt a positive approach to examine whether particular employee is a workman or not". To explain in candid term, the principle evolved and adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference of this Hon'ble Court.
"10. In order to make a reference to a Labour Court or a Tribunal of an Industrial dispute the first point that must engage the attention of the appropriate Government is to decide whether the complaining employee is a "workman".
Even if reference is made of a dispute then the Labour Court or the Tribunal must first apply its mind to this problem for unless the employee concerned is a workman the question of adjudication of an industrial disputes does not arise. In my opinion the approach has to be a positive approach and not a negative approach. In other words, what has to be seen is POIT No. 73016 Page No. 6/20 whether the particular employee is a workman and not whether the employee concerned falls within the exceptions mentioned in Section 2(s) and if he does not fall in one of the exceptions then by process of elimination he is held to be a "workman". A social legislation like the Industrial Disputes Act confers certain rights and obligations upon certain categories of persons. Those rights and obligations must be limited to be attracted only in the case of such persons as are covered by the statute. Certain rights are conferred upon a "workman" as defined by Section 2(s) of the Act. Therefore, those rights are available only to persons who can be called workman and not to all those who are not covered by the exceptions given in Section 2(s). To put in another way what has to be seen is whether a person is a workman as opposed to what may be called "non-workman and not whether he is a workman because he is not a Manager or one employed in an administrative capacity. It is possible that an employee in a given case may not be employed in managerial and administrative capacity or in supervisory capacity and yet he may not be a workman. If the approach is that every employee is a "workman" but the benefits of raising an industrial dispute is not available to those who are subject to the Army Act, or the Air Force Act or the Navy (Discipline) Act or who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison or who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the POIT No. 73016 Page No. 7/20 duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature, then, in my opinion, the approach would be incorrect. The proper approach in law would be to first see whether an employee is a workman and then see whether any of the exceptions are attracted. Reading the definition of the word "workman" I find that it is necessary that a person must be employed in an industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward. Thus the first thing to find out is whether the employee concerned is employed to do manual or clerical work, be it skilled or unskilled, technical or non-technical. If that be so, then he would be workman even if he is employed in a supervisory capacity line less by virtue of being employed in supervisory capacity his wages exceed Rs. 500.00 or his duties or powers convert his employment into one mainly of managerial nature. On the other hand, if manual or clerical work is only small part of the duties of the person concerned and incidental to his main work, which is not manual or clerical then such a person would not be a workman. In Management of M/s. May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their workmen and Appellants, that court was concerned with construing Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it stood before the amendment of 1956. The rule laid down was similar to the one which I have propounded above and I think the rule still holds good despite the substitution of clause (s) of Section 2 by the amendment Act, 36 of 1956. In the case of M/s. May and Baker, referred to above the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that POIT No. 73016 Page No. 8/20 inasmuch as the main work of the employee in that case was that of canvassing and any clerical or manual work that he had to do was incidental to his main work of canvassing the employee could not be regarded as a person falling within the ambit of the term "workman". On good authority, therefore, I hold that the approach has to be positive, as said by me earlier and not negative to find out whether an employee would fall within the ambit of the term workman."
16. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as in ARKAL GOVIND RAJ RAO VS. CIB GEIGY OF INDIA PVT. LTD. BOMBAY reported at 1985 (11) IL 401(403) SC wherein it was held that "the dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration and gloss of some additional duties must be rejected while determining the status and character of the person."
17. Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act defines the term "Workman". The said section is reproduced as below :-
"Workman" means any person (including and 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-
POIT No. 73016 Page No. 9/20(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957; or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(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.
18. From the perusal of record, it is apparent that workman joined the management as Assistant Steward and at the time of retirement, he was serving the management as Restaurant Manager. The management has also taken the objection in preliminary objection No. 1 of the written statement in this regard. In rebuttal to same, workman in corresponding para of the rejoinder has duly admitted that he was Restaurant Manager in the hotel of management and he was performing his supervisory duty.
19. In this regard, reliance is further placed upon judgment titled as S.K. MAINI VS. CARONA SAHU COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. MANU/SC/0429/1994, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that " whether appellant was workman - his predominant duty was administrative or managerial and to some extent supervisory in nature - although some of duties undertaken by him like maintaining accounts filling certain proformas were clerical in nature but his major job was managerial in nature - appellant POIT No. 73016 Page No. 10/20 cannot be workman within meaning of Section 2 (s)".
20. Further, the profile of the employee falls in exception IV of Section 2(s) of ID Act, as such, the instant proceedings initiated by the workman are nothing but abuse of process of law. Exception IV of Section 2(s) of ID Act is reproduced herein below:-
"Workman does not include any such personal ..... (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. "
21. Reliance is further placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS JYOTSNA PAUL Reported at 2004 ILR 2 DL 440 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that "I am of the view that the presumption is that an employee does the job that he or she is employed to do. This is, of course, a rebuttable presumption, the onus being on the employee to show that he or she was actually doing some other work than what he or she was employed to do. In the present case it appears to me, as mentioned above, that the Respondent has overstated her case; in the process she has distorted the truth, which is that she was primarily concerned with managerial and supervisory functions, clerical and manual duties being incidental and occasionally necessary. The Respondent has not been able to successfully rebut the presumption that she was doing what she was employed to do".
22. It is not an out of place to mention herein that in manners, in which the locus standi of the claimant is to be tested has been POIT No. 73016 Page No. 11/20 meticulously examined and defined by the various courts in the aforesaid judgments, including that construed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has to be examined from the pleadings made and the evidence lead by the parties.
23. From above discussion and law settled in above judgments by superior courts, it is clear that nature of duties of workman does not fall within the scope of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act as he was handling managerial work being Restaurant Manager. Thus there is no reason to go differently than the law already settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred judgment and it is held that claimant is not covered under the definition of workman.
24. Since workman has failed to prove that he is workman under section 2 (s) Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the present dispute also does not fall under Industrial Disputes as defined in Section 2
(k) of Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, it is held that claimant is not workman as defined under section 2 (s) Industrial Disputes Act. Further, it is held that present dispute is an Industrial Disputes as defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, issues No. 1 and 3 are decided in favour of management and against the workman.
25. Issue No. 2. Whether the present claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Union?OPW :-
26. The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. Under this issue, the workman was required to prove that whether the present claim has been properly espoused by union or not.
27. In para No. 2 of the preliminary objections of written statement, the management has taken the stand that claim is liable to be rejected as it has not been espoused by substantial number of workman. In POIT No. 73016 Page No. 12/20 corresponding para of rejoinder, the workman has averred that issue of the workman does not call for any espousal but still the cause of workman has been espoused by the President, Hotel Mazdoor Union (Regd.) vide their espousal letter dated 15.05.2013.
28. Further the said letter dated 15.05.2013 is duly proved on record as Ex. WW-1/6 by workman in his evidence. The perusal of this letter duly shows that union of workman decided to file industrial dispute before concerned Labour Office, Delhi Government and thus the present dispute/claim was duly recommended and espoused by union. Nothing contrary to the same has been proved on record by management.
29. The Ld. AR of the workman has drawn the attention of the court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of J.H. Jadhav v. M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2005, decided on 11.02.2005 . The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
"7. As far as espousal is concerned there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the Union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case."
30. The similar issue came up before the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the matter of Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Saju George, W.A. No. 964 of 2020, decided on 01.12.2020 and held:-
"7......There is no doubt about the fact that the workman was POIT No. 73016 Page No. 13/20 a member of the concerned WA No.964/2020 union. According to the workman, the cause of the workman was undertaken by the union even at the initial stage. Apparently, there was no objection from the side of the management during the relevant time. Thereafter, the matter was considered and ultimately the dispute had been referred for consideration by the Tribunal. Once a reference had been made at the instance of the union, it is not open for the management to contend POIT NO. 932-2016 Page No. 11 of 18 at this stage of the proceedings that the cause of the workman had not been espoused by the union."
31. The above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, it is duly proved that claim of workman has been duly espoused by union and issue No. 2 is duly proved in favour of workman and against the management.
32. Issue No. 4. As per terms of reference :-
33. Though this issue is not required to be proved as workman has failed to prove that he is a workman U/s 2 (s) of I. D. Act, still this Tribunal is deciding this issue on merits of the case.
34. Under the issue, the workman is required to prove that whether he is entitled to be superannuated at the age of 55 years in accordance with his letter of appointment or he is entitled to be superannuated at the age of 58 years in terms of Model Standing Orders applicable to the establishment; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this effect.
35. In support of his case, the workman has argued that he was POIT No. 73016 Page No. 14/20 taken in the employment of management vide letter of appointment dated 20.12.1978 as an Assistant Steward and age of retirement reads in same as 55 years in para 5 of said letter. It is also argued that Model Standing Order framed under the provisions of Industrial Employment Act, 1946 provides the age of retirement /superannuation as 58 years and the provisions of Industrial Employment Act 1946 do apply to the establishment of respondent management. It is further pleaded by workman that he retired from the services of the management prematurely by three years and retirement of workman at the age of 55 years is void, illegal, unjustified and needs to be corrected. It is further argued that workman was retired from services of the management w.e.f. from 31.08.2012 vide letter dated 12.06.2012 whereas there has been increase in the age of retirement from 55 to 58 years consequent upon the amendment in the Industrial Employment Act vide notification dated 12.09.1984 and as such, his retirement at the age of 55 years is void, illegal and unjustified.
36. Contrary to the same, it is argued by AR for management that claimant was appointed with management as per terms and conditions envisaged in his appointment letter dated 20.12.1978 and as per same, he admitted that he would be governed by existing rules and regulations of management that may be in force from time to time. It is also argued that Industrial Employment Act 1946 is not applicable to the employees of management herein in view of their specific rules and regulations governing the service conditions of their employees, duly agreed upon and acquiesced by their employees.
POIT No. 73016 Page No. 15/2037. It is settled law that burden to prove a fact lies on the party which pleads the same and not the party who denies it, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., Versus Shamim Mirza reported in (2009) 1 SCC 20.
38. It is important to note here that as per appointment letter of the workman dated 20.12.1978 issued by management at the time of his joining the management which is proved on record as Ex. WW1/1, the workman has agreed that he would be governed by the existing rules and regulations of management that may be in force from time to time. Ex. WW1/1 clearly shows the name of workman, his designation, salary in starting para.
39. Further in para No. 5 of Ex. WW1/1, it is specifically mentioned that "You will retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years which is the age of superannuation in your case. No notice will be necessary for the same".
40. The copy of employment manual of management has also been proved by record by workman himself in his evidence as Ex. WW1/2 which specifically reads as under: "(a) The employees shall be liable for retirement on attaining the age of 55 years. However, on account of physical or mental infirmity, fall in efficiency, or incapacity to work, the employee can be retired earlier. The company may in its discretion give any extension of service beyond the retiring age for such period as it thinks fit.
(b) All leave standing to the credit of the employee due to retirement may either be allowed to him as leave preparatory to retirement or POIT No. 73016 Page No. 16/20 may be encashed entirely at the discretion of the company".
41. Copy of Model Standing Orders on Additional Items Applicable to All Industries have also been placed and proved on record as Ex. WW1/3 wherein it is specifically mentioned that:
"3. Age of Retirement: The age of retirement or superannuation of a workman shall be as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman under an agreement or as specified in a settlement or award which is binding on both the workman and the employer. Where there is no such agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on completion of 58 years of age by the workman."
42. As per para No. 3 of the claim itself, it is apparent that copy of manual of employment was given to workman at the time of employment which reads the age of retirement of an employee as 55 years. So it is crystal clear that workman having accepted the appointment letter and applicability of Employment Manual, after putting years of service, the workman cannot be allowed to claim that the service conditions prescribed in the Employment Manual regarding retirement are not applicable to the workman. It is further not the case of workman that during his entire service, he has ever opposed or protested to the prescribed retirement age of 55 years as mentioned in Manual.
43. It is not an out of place to mention here that workman himself has given a declaration at the time of his appointment that the manual of employment forms part of his contract of employment POIT No. 73016 Page No. 17/20 with management and admitted to be binding on him and having accepted the said service condition during his service tenure, he is estopped from turning around and resiling from the same.
44. During his crossexamination, WW1 admitted that he has signed the employment manual in token of acceptance of terms and condition of the employment the extract of same is already Ex. WW 1/2. He further admitted that he has not challenged his service terms and condition in service tenure.
45. It is rightly argued by management that rather, while productivity declines with agephysically, more sick employees leading to increase in average time off from work and number of leaves and decline in mental and physical abilities, leads to lower productivity. It is also settled legal position that an employer has a right to determine the age of superannuation/retirement for its employee, "retirement" having been defined under section 2 (oo) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the "age of superannuation"
as stipulated in the contract of employment between the employer and workman concerned. It is an age fixed between employer and employee (under the terms of contract/appointment letter) on reaching of which employee goes out of office. It is also argued that declined mental and physical abilities lead to lower productivity whereas employment costs increase with age and aged workmen are not technologically savvy, averse to change and modern learning processes and perpetuate out date policies leading to stagnation and need is to bring in younger people with innovative ideas for increased productivity.POIT No. 73016 Page No. 18/20
46. It is important to mention here that retirement does not snatch the right of a person to his livelihood, it merely restricts the right of the employee to hold the office for a stated number of years and his requirement/misplaced sympathy sought by him cannot change the rules and regulations applicable to him and similarly situated employees in the management. It is further important to note here that it is not the case of workman that he was retired prior to age of 55 years. So the management has acted as per agreed terms and conditions as contained in appointment letter.
47. It is not an out of place to mention here that issue of retirement age of a workman working in an industrial establishment is covered under employment laws in India. The industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 has a Central Schedule, Schedule IB wherein retirement age is stated as 58 years. In case of establishments which are not governed by Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and rules made thereunder, the age of retirement is decided by service conditions such as appointment letters/ employment agreements/ settlement. Thus, the terms of contract would govern the service conditions and in the present case, as per the service conditions /appointment letter, the age of retirement/superannuation of the workman is 55 years.
48. The case would have been totally different, if the workman herein was retired prior to 55 years of age by management but herein the management has acted on the basis of specific terms and conditions contained in appointment letter and as per the rules /their employment manual wherein the age of retirement has been POIT No. 73016 Page No. 19/20 specifically mentioned as 55 years.
49. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal finds that workman has not been able to discharge the onus regarding his entitled to the benefits of his service with management upto age of 58 years. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of management and against the workman.
50. Relief :- In view of the observations made above on the above discussed issues, it is held that workman is not entitled for the relief sought and his claim stands rejected and award is passed against workman and in favour of management. Reference is disposed off accordingly.
51. A copy of this award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules. Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY GOEL Date:
Announced in open Tribunal GOEL 2023.07.07
15:48:25
on this 06.07.2023 +0530
(AJAY GOEL)
POIT-I/Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
POIT No. 73016 Page No. 20/20