Full Text
KISHAN VISHWAKARMA & TWO OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through Mr. Raj Kumar Maan, Advocate
Through Respondent ex parte.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside or modify the Award dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court XVI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short, called ‘the Labour Court’) in ID No.718/06/03. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi through its Secretary (Labour), vide reference No.F-24(4705)/2002/Lab./ 798-802 dated 31.03.2003 referred the dispute between the Management of the respondent and its workmen, to the Labour Court for adjudication, in the following terms of reference: “Whether the services of Sh. Kishan Vishwakarma & 6 Ors. have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the 2018:DHC:2611 management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefit in terms of existing laws/ Govt. notification and to what other relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the Labour Court has passed the impugned Award in respect of five workmen including the petitioners herein, whereas the impugned Award has been challenged by three workmen, i.e., the petitioners before this Court. Thus, this Court is considering the impugned Award in respect of these petitioners/workmen only.
3. The claim of the workmen including the petitioners herein and the written statement of the Management, as verbatim noticed by the Labour Court, are as follow:- “As per claim, the workmen had been working on the post, monthly salary, date of joining as per chart given below:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Name Post Date of Monthly │ │ No. joining Salary(in Rs.) │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Kishan Fitter 15.03.95 2,500/- │ │ Vishwakarma │ │ 2. Sugriv Pressman 15.03.95 2,000/- │ │ 3. Jagdish Paswan Pressman 15.03.95 2,000/- │ │ 4. Vishram Yadav Helper 10.05.95 1,500/- │ │ 5. Dalip Jha Pressman 15.03.95 2,000/- │ │ It is stated that the management had no complaint │ │ against the workmen in their service period. It is further stated │ │ that all the workmen demanded the legal facilities i.e. Minimum │ │ Wages, ESI, PF, Earned Leaves etc. but the management had │ │ not provided the same and on demanding these facilities by the │ │ WP(C) No.605/2012 Page 2 of 11 │ │ 2018:DHC:2611 │ │ workmen repeatedly, management got annoyed and terminated │ │ their services on 05.05.02 without giving any notice and notice │ │ pay and also without paying earned wages for the month of │ │ March, April and May 2002 and without conducting any │ │ domestic enquiry as well as issuing the charge sheet. It is │ │ further stated that all the workmen had made a complaint │ │ before Labour Inspector on which Labour Inspector visited the │ │ management and gave directions to the management to │ │ reinstate the workmen and to pay their earned wages but the │ │ management had refused the same. It is further stated that │ │ management took forcible signature of the workmen on the │ │ blank papers and vouchers before terminating their services. It │ │ is further stated that workmen sent a demand notice through │ │ registered AD on 13.05.02, which was not replied by the │ │ management. It is further stated that workmen tried to search │ │ the job at many places but they failed to get any job. It is │ │ further stated that all the workmen are entitled for │ │ reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of │ │ service alongwith consequential benefits. │ │ The Management has stated in the written statement that │ │ workmen Kishan Vishwakarma and Sh. Sugriv Yadav have │ │ settled their full and final account on 12.04.02 out of their own │ │ free will for a sum of Rs. 13,110/- and Rs. 11,223/- respectively │ │ and as such there are no existing dues in favour of workmen │ │ and against the management. It is further stated that the claim │ │ of the claimant Dalip Jha is also not maintainable on the │ │ ground that the workmen had taken his full and final dues with │ │ the management in the year 2001 and after taking his full and │ │ final dues, workman Dalip Jha never again joined the duty with │ │ the answering management and therefore no relationship exists │ │ between the parties after 2001. It is further stated that the claim │ │ of the workmen namely Jagdish Paswan and Vishram Yadav is │ │ not maintainable on the ground that there was no relationship │ │ of employee and employer between the parties. It is further │ │ stated that the demand of the workmen for reinstatement in │ │ their services with full back wages deserves to be dismissed on │ │ the ground that the answering management has closed its │ │ business activities completely and permanently w.e.f. 10.04.02 │ │ onwards and the management has been suffering acute │ │ WP(C) No.605/2012 Page 3 of 11 │ │ 2018:DHC:2611 │ │ financial problem in its business on account of recession in the │ │ market. It is further stated that the management has sold his │ │ machines to M/s Ravi Industries A-278, Okhla Industrial Area, │ │ Phase-II, New Delhi on 16.04.02. It is further stated that the │ │ closure of the factory has also been intimated to the Regional │ │ Officer, Employee State Insurance Corp. vide separate letter dt. │ │ 06.05.02 and the ESI Inspector inspected the firm and gave the │ │ report of closure on 23.01.03. It is further stated that the │ │ management also sent a letter to the Labour Commissioner, 5 │ │ Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. It is further stated that the concerned │ │ workmen are well aware of the fact of the closure. It is further │ │ stated that the claim of the workmen is liable to be dismissed on │ │ the ground that the workmen have suppressed the material facts │ │ of the case. It is further stated that the workmen have filed the │ │ present claim only to harass and blackmail the management in │ │ order to extort money from the management. It is further stated │ │ that no demand notice was ever served upon the management. │ │ In reply on merits, it is denied that the name of the │ │ workmen whose names are mentioned in the table are true │ │ picture of their employment, post, salary and duration of │ │ service. It is submitted that Kishan Vishwakarma and Sugriv │ │ Yadav were working as helper since 01.11.98 and their last │ │ drawn wages were Rs. 2850/- and Rs. 2440/- per month. It is │ │ further stated that workmen Kishan and Sugriv Yadav have │ │ settled their full and final account with the management on │ │ 12.04.02. It is further stated that the workman Dilip Jha had │ │ already settled his account in the year 2001. It is submitted that │ │ management had provided all the legal and lawful facilities to │ │ the workmen, who worked with the management at the time of │ │ running the firm. Rest of the allegations are also denied by the │ │ management.” │ │ 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court vide │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Labour Court, while passing the impugned Award, has not given any reasons while granting lump-sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- to petitioner No.2. As far as Sugriv Yadav (petitioner No.2) is concerned, it has been held by the Labour Court, while deciding issue No.2 that the Management has failed to prove that Sugriv Yadav had taken his full and final dues towards all his claims and accordingly decided the issue in favour of petitioner No.2. However, taking into consideration that, since the Management had proved that it had closed its establishment w.e.f. 10.4.2002, petitioner No.2 was held to be entitled to receive a lump sum of Rs.25,000/-.
14. It is a fact, evident from the record that the Labour Court has not given any cogent basis or reasoning while quantifying the amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to petitioner No.2. The matter requires factual appreciation and disposition. Hence, I deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the Labour Court to reconsider the case regarding payment of lump-sum compensation to petitioner No.2 and take into consideration the facts and the law in this regard, giving cogent reasoning and the basis thereof.
15. As regards petitioner No.3 Jagdish Paswan, it has been held by the Labour Court that the said petitioner has not filed or proved any document on record to show that he was ever in the employment of the Management. The Labour Court was of the view that in any labour dispute, whenever a relationship has been denied, it is for the workman to prove the existence of the relationship, while relying on the judgments in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 514; Swapan Dass Gupta v. First Labour Court of W.B., 1975 LIC 202 and N.C. John v. Secy. Thodupusha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers’ Union, 1973 (001) ILLJ 366 Kerala. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the finding and the conclusion of the Labour Court that petitioner No.3 could not prove the relationship of employee and employer between him and the respondent-Management was against the law and the facts proved on record. The Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration and drawn an inference against the Management in view of their failure to produce the documents, including record of attendance, wage register, etc. It is also submitted that the Management intentionally did not produce the said documents on the false and fictitious plea of missing the record. This Court is not inclined to make any observations, in the interest of justice, regarding the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so far as petitioner No.3 is concerned. However, I deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the Labour Court to also reconsider the case of petitioner No.3, in view of the evidence on the record and the law in this regard.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned Award dated 14.01.2011 is quashed and set-aside so far as the present petitioners are concerned, except the findings on issue No.3. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the case of each individual petitioner. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the concerned Labour Court, so far as the petitioners are concerned, with a direction to reconsider their disputes and the claims, as per law.
17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The Labour Court record be sent back immediately.
18. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Labour Court on 04.05.2018 at 10:00 am. It is desirable that the matter may be disposed of as soon as possible, preferably within a period of six months.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 20, 2018/b/tp