Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. I have heard Shri Anjanee Kumar Chaudhary ­ Ld. AR for the workman and Shri Satyender Verma - Ld. AR for the Management and have gone through the record.

My issue wise findings are as under:­ ISSUE NO. 1 :

6. At the outset, it may be stated that the workman has not approached the Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing material facts. In the claim as well as in the affidavit, he alleged that he was transferred to MMX Mall, Mohan Nagar but was directed to report for duty at the head office at Patparganj from where his services were terminated. However, in the cross­examination he admitted that he was transferred to Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, and had even taken charge there from the franchisee. He further admitted that he had handed over the charge of Mohan Nagar Store to Shri Pradeep on 19.6.2007 and further admitted that he had lastly worked in the store of the management on 19.6.2007. This shows that his last situs of work was at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad and therefore, the cause of action also arose at Ghaziabad, UP and the claim filed in Delhi is beyond jurisdiction . The claim is liable to be dismissed on this very ground itself.

8. As far as his supervisory control is concerned, which though he has denied, but is apparent from his cross­examination . In his claim as well as affidavit, he himself has stated that he joined the services of the management as Store Manager. He deposed that he had taken the 'charge' at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. A person who is the Incharge of a particular unit only is capable of taking the charge of that unit and no person subordinate to him or a Salesman could have taken the charge of said unit. He also deposed that there were three Salesmen and one Salesgirl at the Mohan Nagar store. Though he denied that they used to work under his control and supervision but also deposed that there was no senior employee of the management above him in the Store meaning thereby that he was the Incharge of the Store. He also admitted that he had handed over the charge of Mohan Nagar Store to Shri Pradeep on 19.6.2007 which again leads to an inference that he was the Incharge of the said Store and the other sales persons were working under him. He also admitted that the Salesman use to get incentives on the sales and added that he was also entitled for the same but was not paid and that he never lodged any protest against it. It is again unbelievable that if he was entitled to any incentive and was not paid, no protest would have been lodged by him. This only means that being the Store Manager, he was not entitled to any incentive.

9. The above facts which have come in the cross­examination of the workman clearly show that he was enjoying supervisory capacity in the Mohan Nagar Store over the four Sales persons working under him and was the overall Incharge of the said Store.

10. It was alleged by the workman that allegation was made against him by the management for shortage of stock . However, he himself had signed the handing over of charge documents vide Ex.WW1/M3 and M4 which are inventory of the stock sale and cash and charge transfer declaration . Ex.WW1/M3 depicts the shortage of stock worth Rs.5588/­. Though the workman alleged that his signatures were obtained before calculations but further admitted that he never lodged any complaint against the management for obtaining his signatures on blank papers. This only shows his malafide. He has also admitted that had the management not deducted the short amount from his salary, he would not have filed the present case.