Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak & Anr. on 26 November, 1993
31. He has also submitted that the applicant was authorized to
do the acts, as mentioned in Power of Attorney, photocopies
whereof are mark A, B and C. He has also submitted that the
applicant was doing the managerial and supervisory works, as
mentioned in the power of attorney, but, this applicant had
started committing cheating and he had withheld the amounts of
the management, which were taken from the Railtel and BSNL
LCA no. 1413/16 page no. 12/28
and further submitted that this applicant had also embezzled the
funds of the management and cheated the local persons of
Bhopal and further submitted that this applicant had also settled
the disputes with the management for a total amount of Rs.
2,0,000/- and this applicant had given in writing dated01.08.2012
Ex. WW1/XM-2 and submitted that as per the oral settlement,
the applicant was to get release the remaining amount from the
Railtel and BSNL and only after realization of the said amount,
the applicant was supposed to present two cheques of Rs.
1,00,000/- each, as mentioned in Ex. WW1/XM-2,but, the
applicant has failed to make efforts for realization of the amounts
from Railtel and BSNL and submitted that this applicant had
presented one cheque which was dishonoured, but, an amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/-,regarding another cheque, as mentioned in Ex.
WW1/XM-2 was paid by the management to the applicant. He
has also submitted that the management had paid Rs. 60,000/- in
cash and Rs. 40,000/-, vide cheque to the applicant and this
applicant had admitted in his cross examination on dated
28.08.2015 that he had received Rs. 60,000/- in cash and Rs.
40,000/- through cheque in lieu of the said cheque, which was
dishonoured. He has further submitted that since this applicant
has claimed that he was workman of the management, so, it was
obligatory on the part of the applicant to prove that he was
workman of the management. He has also submitted that the
applicant has claimed that his salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month,
but, he has failed to prove on record that he was employee of the
management or that his salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month or that
he is entitled to recover the total amount of Rs. 5,42,000/- from
the management. He has also submitted that even if the contents
LCA no. 1413/16 page no. 13/28
of the photocopies of Power of attorneys mark A, B and C are
looked into, even then, it is clear that this applicant was doing
managerial work, as, he was also doing the work of liasioning.
So, the applicant is not workman within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has also submitted that the
applicant during his cross examination, has failed to give details
of the total amount and further submitted that the pleadings of
the applicant are full of vagueness, as he has not mentioned the
details of the amount sought to be recovered in the present
application and during his cross examination, when, this
applicant was asked to give the details of the amount of Rs.
3,02,000/-, as mentioned in para no.7 of his affidavit, he has
failed to give any detail thereof and submitted that this applicant
in his cross examination has admitted that he has not placed on
record any pay slip and he has also deposed that he was having
authority to give sub-contract, but, he has failed to produce any
documentary proof thereof and submitted that the applicant was
doing the work even beyond of the acts, as mentioned in the
photocopies of the power of attorneys, placed on record being
marked A, B and C. He has also submitted that applicant has
relied upon the photocopies of Power of Attorneys marked A, B
and C, which do not authorize to the applicant to engage any
contractor or sub-contractor, but, despite of it, he indulged
himself in such ultra virus acts and he has also caused great
financial loss to the management and further submitted that this
applicant has filed the application under Section 33 (C) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, but, as there is no prior adjudication
about the right of the applicant for recovering Rs 5,42,000/-, as
claimed by him in his application under Section 33(C), nor the
LCA no. 1413/16 page no. 14/28
said amount is admitted by the management, so, this application
of the applicant is not maintainable. He has relied upon the
judgment passed by their Lordship of Supreme Court in case
MCD Vs. Ganesh Razak and another, 1994, LLR 82 (SC) :