Delhi District Court
Claimant ( vs M/S Icom Teleservices Pvt. Ltd on 20 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO,
(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT NO. 02, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS:
NEW DELHI
LIR No. 51/2022
Date of institution 06.01.2022
Date of Award 20.04.2022
Sh. Radha Krishna,
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Singh,
Aged-30 years,
R/o H.No. L-99, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi-110062.
Mb. No. 9354768313 and 9654993626
Through
Sh. Umesh Kumar (Joint Secretary)
Mb.No. 9250640540
Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikash Sangathan (Regd. No. 4290)
W-10, Opposite Kalkaji Bus Depot Govindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
.....Claimant (Workman)
Vs
1.M/s Icom Teleservices Pvt. Ltd.
A-7, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
2. M/s Delcom Telesystems Pvt. Ltd.
A-7, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
.....Managements AWARD
1. This award of mine will dispose off the reference sent to this court by the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, Distt. South District, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, arising out LIR No. 51/2022 Sh. Radha Krishna vs M/s Icom Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. page no. 1/4 between the parties, as mentioned herein above, vide notification No. F.24(171)/Lab./SD/2020/12025 dated 02.07.2021 with the following terms of reference:-
"Whether the services of Sh. Radha Krishna s/o Sh. Ram Avtar Singh, aged-30 years, Mobile No. 9354768313 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The matter is fixed for today for service of the court notices to the workman. The court notices issued to the workman are received back with the reports served and today, on calling the case, the workman (hereinafter will be referred to as the "Claimant") has appeared alongwith his Authorized Representative and filed statement of claim, letter of authority and photocopies of certain documents.
3. I have heard the claimant/workman and his Authorized Representative and perused the record.
4. The perusal of the record reveals that the claimant/workman has claimed in his statement of claim that he was working as AV Engineer in the management since 10.10.2018 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 18,150/- and on dated 30.06.2020, his services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management without payment of his arrears, without notice or without any chargesheet or without conducting any domestic enquiry against the him and this claimant has sought his reinstatement with full back wages and all consiquential benefits.
5. When, this court has asked to the claimant/workman about his educational qualification and his duties in the management, then, he has told to the court that he was appointed as Audio Video Engineer in the management LIR No. 51/2022 Sh. Radha Krishna vs M/s Icom Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. page no. 2/4 and his duties in the management were of an Audio Video Engineer. As he had passed the degree of Engineer in Electronics from Bulandshehar.
6. Since, the statement of claim, photocopy of demand notice, photocopy of letter of appointmemnt and photocopy of letter of confirmation filed by the claimant reveal that this claimant was appointed as AV Engineer and since, this claimant has also told to the court today that he had passed degree as Engineer in Electronics from Bulandshehar and he was also performing the duties as an Audio Video Engineer in the management.
7. As in case Shri Divyash Pandit ... v. The Management Of Na...Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8451/2009, the claimant was GraduateEngineer and he was also doing research work and the Ld. Labour Court was pleased to hold that the claimant was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and their Lordship of High Court of Delhi, while upheld the findings of the Ld. Labour Court was pleased to hold that:
"10. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis of evidencedone by the learned Labour Court and its finding thatthe petitioner is not a workman, this Court cannot sit as Court of appeal and re-appreciate the evidence and come to a contrary finding which on the face of itseems to be totally absurd position that a graduateengineer trainee working in an industry is held to be a workmen within the definition of Section 2(s) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.
11. I am in full agreement with the finding of thelearned Labour Court and hold that there is no perversity, illegality or violation of any rule andregulation of principle of natural justice so far as the award of the learned Labour Court is concerned, accordingly, the writ petition is totally meritless and the same is dismissed."
8. Thus, from the contents of the statement of claim and photocopies of demand notice, letter of appointment and letter of confirmation, it is clear that LIR No. 51/2022 Sh. Radha Krishna vs M/s Icom Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. page no. 3/4 this claimant had worked in the management as AV Engineer and he was also performing his duties as Audio Video Engineer in the management. So, the claimant is not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9. Since, the Industrial Disputes Act is Special Act, which is dealing with the classified persons, who come within the definition of workman or employer and as the claimant has claimed that he was working as Audieo Video Engineer in the management, so, in the light of the judgement as mentioned herein above, the claimant is not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. So, the statement of claim is not maintainable in this court.
10. In view of the above discussions, no ground is made out to issue notices to the managements. The statement of claim filed by the claimant is hereby dismissed being beyond the purview of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the claimant is left at liberty to raise such claim before the appropriate authority/forum, in accordance with law. In the abovesaid terms, the reference is answered accordingly.
11. An attested copy of the award be sent to the Office of 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 after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR
KUMAR MATTO
Date: 2022.04.20
MATTO 16:15:03 +0530
Announced in open court PAWAN KUMAR MATTO
on 20.04.2022 (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE)
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-02
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT:
NEW DELHI-dr
LIR No. 51/2022 Sh. Radha Krishna vs M/s Icom Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. page no. 4/4