Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Is Placed Upon Nilgiri Coop. Marketing ... vs . State Of Tamil on 2 May, 2009

                                   1

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY GARG : POLC : V : KARKARDOOMA:
                               DELHI.


DID No. 384/08


BETWEEN


The workman Sh. Vimal Kumar Verma
S/o. Sh. Pearey Lal,
R/o. B-9/3, Rana Partap Bagh, Delhi-110007.

AND


The management of M/s. Mellcon Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,
B-297, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.


DATE OF INSTITUTION                    : 11.3.2008
DATE OF ARGUMENTS                       : 28.4.2009
DATE OF AWARD                          : 2.5.2009

AWARD


1.

By this order I shall dispose of claim filed by the workman U/S 10(4)(A) of I.D. Act.

2. The brief facts as stated by workman in his statement of claim are that he was appointed as a technical person for 6 months w.e.f. 1.8.07 and thereafter to be confirmed. Before joining the management he was working for Blue Star as Site Engineer. He joined as a Manager (Marketing) and he was assured service for a period of 6 months as probationer and thereafter on permanent basis. His salary was Rs.23959/- and to be revised after six months. Suddenly on 23.8.07 he was asked by the management to leave the job without any chargesheet, enquiry or any compensation. Even earned wages from 1.8.07 to 23.8.07 were not paid. He approached the authority under Delhi Shops & Establishment Act for getting earned wages. He received Rs.17,777/- as a wages for 23 days vide cheque from the management. He sent a demand notice dated 26.2.08 but it was not 2 acknowledged by the management. Workman has requested for an appropriate award in his favour.

3. The management contested the claim and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that workman has not completed 240 days for service and he is not entitled for the relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. On merits, it is stated that workman was working purely on managerial capacity. It is denied that workman was assured service for 6 months as probationer and thereafter as permanent. It is stated that service of workman were never terminated and he only worked for 23 days with the management and he was paid entire wages for this period.

4. Workman filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management reiterating his submissions in his statement of claim and denying the averments made by management in its written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 24.9.08 :-

1. Whether workman completed 240 days of service with the management? OPW

2. Whether termination of service of workman is illegal and/or unjustified? OPW

3. Relief.

6. In evidence workman examined himself as WW1. He filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.WMA-1 to Ex.WMA-3.

Ex.WMA-1 is the appointment letter, Ex.WMA-2 is the copy of cheque and Ex.WMA-3 is the demand notice. At the evidence stage management absented and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.12.08. The management being exparte did not lead any evidence.

7. Heard arguments of Sh. Pyare Lal, Ld. AR for the workman and Sh.

B.K. Chhabra, Ld. AR for the management. Perused the case file. My issue wise findings are as under :-

8. The burden to prove this issue lay upon the workman. The reliance is placed upon Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.: 2004 LLR 351.

9. It is admitted case of the workman that he only worked for 23 days with the management and thereafter he was illegally terminated by the management. Retrenchment is the only authorised mode available with the management under the Industrial Disputes Act to do cessation of service of the workman. To be entitled to relief under section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the workman is required to be in continuous service of 240 days in the preceding year. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

10. As already discussed in above issue since the workman has not rendered continuous service of 240 days in the preceding year, his termination cannot be held illegal and unjustified. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

ISSUE NO.3 (RELIEF)

11. In view of the findings on issue No.1 and 2, I hold that workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him. Reference is answered accordingly.

A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for its publication.

File be consigned to record room.

Date:   2.5.2009                                (SANJAY GARG)
                                               PRESIDING OFFICER
                                               LABOUR COURT: V
                                                   DELHI.