Inder Dev Yadav v. Govt. of NCT & Anr.

1. The challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned award dated 26.09.2012 passed by the learned POLC – IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.371/11.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner – workman (hereinafter referred to as “the workman”) is that he was in service of the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the management”) since 1997 on the last drawn salary of Rs.10,200/- per month at the post of machine-man. On 28.06.2010, the services of the workman were terminated illegally and arbitrarily by the management as such the workman filed a complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 15.07.2010. However, on account of adamant attitude of the management, the conciliation failed. Ultimately, the matter was sent to the Labour Court by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, District North West with following terms of reference: “Whether the services of Inderdev Yadav s/o late Shri Devi Lal Yadav have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” 2015:DHC:7712

3. After receipt of reference, notice was issued to the workman with directions to file statement of claim wherein the workman filed the claim with a prayer that the management be directed to reinstate him with full back-wages including benefits of continuity of services and other consequential benefits. The claim of the workman was challenged by the management inter alia on the ground that the management never terminated the services of the workman rather he left the services of his own on the pretext of increase in wages which was beyond the financial capacity and reach of the management and thereafter the workman preferred to leave the services of the management. Therefore, the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the relationship was not denied but it was denied that the workman was working with the management since 13.07.1997 or that his last drawn salary was Rs.10,200/- per month or that he was working as a machine man. It was submitted that the workman has been working with the management since 12.02.2004 that too as a helper and his last drawn salary was Rs. 5278/- per month. It was further submitted that in case the wages of the workman would have been Rs.10,200/- then he would not have accepted the amount of Rs.5185/- through cheque as his earned wages for the month of June, 2010 to 21st July, 2010 in the presence of the Labour Inspector – Joginder Singh. It was denied that the management terminated the services of the workman on any date. The management never disallowed the workman to perform his duties and never terminated his services. It was also denied that the management used to get signatures of the workman on printed or plain papers without his consent.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues on 17.02.2012: “1. Whether the workman has left the service of his own on the pretext of increase in wages?

2. Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management?

3. Relief.”

5. The workman examined himself whereas Mr Deepak Garg, proprietor of the management examined himself.

6. Both the issues were taken up together by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the same were interconnected and it was held that the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably. The workman was granted compensation to the extent of 50% of the minimum wages or 50% of the actual salary, whichever was higher from time to time with effect from 28.06.2010 i.e. the date of termination of services. The management was directed to release this payment to the workman within a period of one month from the date of award failing which the amount was to carry simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the award till realization.

7. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by the workman.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner – workman assailed the relief part granted to the workman vide the impugned award primarily on the ground that despite holding that the services of the workman were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably, he was not ordered to be reinstated in the services by the Labour Court. Even as regards the quantum of compensation, without any material on record, it was observed that the workman is an able-bodied person and it cannot be believed that he would remain unemployed for such a long period and, therefore, 50% of the minimum wages or actual salary was awarded to the workman. Even if the relief of reinstatement was not granted, the workman was entitled to 100% of the minimum wages or actual salary, whichever was higher.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – management submitted that the findings of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside inasmuch as except for oral statement made by the workman that he was employed with the management since 13.07.1997 and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,200/- per month at the time of his alleged termination, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate this allegation. On the other hand, the management had proved the appointment letter dated Ex.WW1/XM-I, which was admitted by the workman to prove that the workman was appointed on 01.01.2004 as a helper on the salary of Rs.3500/-. Moreover, the workman also admitted the salary register Ex.WW1/XM-2 to Ex. WW1/XM-7 to prove the fact that the last drawn salary of the workman was Rs. 5278/-. Even the Labour Inspector submitted his report which was filed by the workman himself which proves the case of the management. The certificate Ex.WW1/2 was given to the workman on his request that he had applied for some flat with DSIDC wherein although it was mentioned that he was working as machine man but his salary was mentioned as Rs.3740/- per month. Even before the Labour Inspector a sum of Rs.5185/- was paid to the workman for the month of June, 2010 and this cheque would not have been accepted by the workman had his salary been Rs.10,200/- per month. Rather the workman himself left the job of the management. He himself declined to join the management unless he is given an increase in his salary. As such it was submitted that the findings of the Labour Court regarding illegal termination of services of the workman deserves to be set aside and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

10. Before considering the merits of the claims of both the parties, it will be useful to refer to the scope of interference by a writ court in finding of facts rendered by the Tribunal / Labour Court.

11. In M/s Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. V Kitab Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 where Supreme Court summarized various circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which are as under: