Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The management got examined Neeraj Sehdev as MW1 and relied upon the following documents:-

Mark-A Copy of Police complaint dated 09.10.2019 against the workman Mark-B Copy of order dated 07.02.2022 passed by Sh.
Amar Deep-Authority under the Delhi Shop and Establishment Act LIR No. 645/19 Md Nisar Vs. M/s Sunlight Upkeep and Maintainance Page 7
09. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.

From the above testimony/statement on behalf of the management, it is crystally clear that the workman/claimant was working with the management.

In light of above, it stands prove that there was relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.

Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the workman and LIR No. 645/19 Md Nisar Vs. M/s Sunlight Upkeep and Maintainance Page 8 and against the management.

11. ISSUE No. 2

2. Whether the services of workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled? OPW The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the Workman.

WW1/workman deposed that the workman had joined the management on 01.04.1992 as Manager and his last drawn salary was Rs. 20,000/­ per month. Though, he had been appointed as Manager with the management but his work had already fixed. None was working under his instruction. He did not have any power to appoint and terminate any of the employee. Further, he was also not having any power to sign any cheque, hence, he comes within the definition of the workman. During his service period with the management, his services were neat and clean and unblemished. During service period, he never gave any chance of complaint to the management. At the time of his joining and during services period, the management got his signatures on blank papers, blank vouchers, settlement letter and blank appointment letter but never gave the copy of the same to the workman. The management did not use to give the salary on time. The management also did not provide many legal facilities like appointment letter, wages slip, leave book, attendance card, identity card, bonus, overtime, conveyance allowance, weekly LIR No. 645/19 Md Nisar Vs. M/s Sunlight Upkeep and Maintainance Page 9 and festival leaves, yearly promotion etc. He orally demanded these facilities from the management but all in vain. The management got annoyed and in order to take revenge, without any reason and without following any seniority list, without any notice, without giving earned wages w.e.f. 01.07.2016 to 24.07.2017 and after getting his signatures on full & final settlement and on blank papers had terminated his services on 25.07.2017. He also made complaint through his union to the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Pushpa Vihar, New Delhi but despite best efforts by the Labour Inspector, the management did neither give his earned wages nor reinstate him and also did not show any record. He also filed Statement of Claim before the Conciliation Officer but due to non­cooperative behaviour on behalf of the management, no compromise materialized between the parties.

On the other hand, MW1­Neeraj Sehdev deposed that the workman was working on a managerial post and taking commission from the other workers during his services and voluntarily left his services without intimating the management being a Manager, the workman does not come under the definition of the workman. The workman/claimant had stolen important documents and CPU from the office of the management in the presence of accountant on 22.07.2017 after the information received by the management, the management had lodged a police complaint against the workman on 09.10.2019 which is Mark­A. The Sunlight had been closed due LIR No. 645/19 Md Nisar Vs. M/s Sunlight Upkeep and Maintainance Page 10 to his cheating and on the other hand, workman is running firms and doing good business.