INTHECOURTOFSHRIUMEDSINGHGREWAL PO:LCXVII,ROOMNO.22:KKDCOURTS:DELHI DID547/16(OldDID82/10) UniqueIDNo.02402C0229362010 INTHEMATTEROF: Sh.AjayChauhan C/oAvdeshSingh 796/1,PaschimPuri,NewDelhi63 [ENTITY] Versus M/s.FullertonIndiaCreditCompany E4/3,FirstFloor,JhandewalanExtn, NearVideoconTower,NewDelhi55 Management DATEOFINSTITUTION : 12.08.2010. DATEONWHICHAWARDRESERVED: 24.08.2016. DATEONWHICHAWARDPASSED : 01.09.2016. AWARD: 1. This is a direct industrial dispute filed by the workman under Section 10(4A) of the [ACT] (hereinafterreferredas"theAct")forreinstatementwithcontinuity ofserviceandfullbackwages. 2. Claimant's case is that he had started working with the management as Collection Officer w.e.f. 20.08.2007 at the last drawnsalaryofRs.25,567/.Themanagementwasinthebusiness [CASE NUMBER] 1/22 offinanceforwhichithademployedmorethan100workers.A showcausenoticedated16.02.2010wasissuedtohimalleging some misconduct which he had replied vide letter dated 22.02.2010denyingeveryallegation. Despiteit,hisservicewas illegallyterminatedon01.04.2010withoutanyenquiryetc. The demandnoticedated08.07.2010wentunreplied. He isjobless sincetermination. 3. Written statement is to the effect that the claimant was appointedbymanagementoncontractonthepostofCollection Officerw.e.f.20.08.2007.Hisjobwassupervisoryinnatureand [ENTITY].Aspertermsandconditionsmentioned inappointmentletter,claimant'sservicecanbeterminatedwithout assigninganyreasonbywayofonemonth'snotice.Asperclause 6.6 of the appointment letter, the management had right to terminatetheserviceofanyemployeeifhewasfoundguiltyof misdemeanor,misconduct,negligenceorbreachoftermsofoffer or any other existing terms of service or rule etc. Claimant's behaviourtowardsjuniorandseniorwasnotcordial.Hehadused abusivelanguageseveraltimeswithcolleagues. Particularlyon 08.01.2010, he misbehaved with Sh. [ENTITY], Branch ManagerofNehruVihar.Hehadmisbehavedwithaseniorlady employee namely [ENTITY] for which the claimant had begged apology vide letter dated 08.01.2010. The other [CASE NUMBER] 2/22 misconductwasthathewasinvolvedinrotationoffundswhich wasnotreported/disclosedbyhimtohiscollectionsupervisoror complianceteam.Hedidnotusetodeposittherecoveredamount withthemanagement.Forthosemisconducts,showcausenotice dated16.02.2010wasissuedtohimwhichwasrepliedbyhimon 22.02.2010. Afterreceiptofhisreply,enquirywasconductedin which he was found guilty and his service was terminated on 01.04.2010. 4. Followingissueswereframedon08.01.2013: (i) WhethertheclaimantisworkmanasdefinedU/s2(s)ofthe IndustrialDisputeAct?OPW (ii) Whethertheservicesoftheworkmanhavebeenillegally terminatedbythemanagement?OPW (iii) Relief. 5. Inordertosubstantiatethecase,theclaimanttenderedhis affidavitinevidenceasEx.WW1/Amentioningallthefactsstated instatementofclaim.Herelieduponfollowingdocuments: (i) Ex.WW1/1dated07.05.2008islettervidewhichhisservice wasconfirmedaftercompletionofprobationperiod. (ii)Ex.WW1/2dated01.04.2010isterminationletter. (iii) Ex.WW1/3dated08.07.2010isdemandnotice. (iv) Ex.WW1/4ispostalreceiptvidewhichdemandnoticewas senttothemanagement. (v) Ex.WW1/5dated09.08.2010isreplybymanagementtothe [CASE NUMBER] 3/22 demandnotice. 6. The management examined Sh. [ENTITY] as MW1 who deposed that the management was a financial institution engaged in lending of various types of loans and financialassistanceintheformofhomeloanagainstproperty,auto loan,personalloansandtwowheelerloanetc.Inordertomanage disbursalandcollectionofloans,ithademployedvariouspersons across India. The claimant was appointed on 20.08.2007 as CollectionOfficeronthebasisofhiseducationalqualificationand merits at a salary of Rs.21,392/ vide appointment letter Ex.MW1/B. His duty was to collect money from customers against receipt anddepositwithtreasurerofthecompany. His duty was to deposit collected amount immediately because any delayindepositionwouldcauselevyingofinterestintheaccount ofcustomersfornofaultoftheirs.Hefurtherdeposedthatservice oftheclaimantwasconfirmedvideconfirmationletterEx.MW1/C on07.05.2008andhissalarywasincreasedtoRs.27,027/buthis behavour towards junior and several members was not cordial. Severalcustomershadalsocomplainedabouthisrudebehavour. On08.01.2010,themanager,duetomismatchoffinancialdetails ofmoneycollectedbyclaimantfromcustomersandthedateon whichmoneywasdepositedbyhim,madeenquiryfromhimdue towhichhefeltoffendedandmisbehavedwithmanagerMr.[ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] 4/22 Kothari who was posted in Nehru Place Branch. He had also misbehaved with senior female employee namely Ms. [ENTITY].Hehadhimselfwrittenapologydated08.01.2010Mark 1forunconditionalapology.Duetoabusiveandbadconduct,the managementhadissuedhimashowcausenoticeMark2dated 16.10.2010 for his explanation which was replied by him vide letter dated 22.02.2010 Mark 3. Thereafter, the matter was investigatedbyFraudControlUnitinwhichitwasestablishedthat theclaimantwasinvolvedinmismanagementandsiphoningoff funds as well as rotation of funds collected from customers towardsloanpayment.Inthisway,hehadcausedwrongfullossto the management and wrongful gain to himself. Due to non deposition of collected amount of payment, some interest was debitedfromtheaccountsofcustomers.Hewasfoundguiltyand hisservicewasterminatedvideletterdated01.04.2010Mark4. Henextdeposedthatasperclause6.6ofappointmentletter,the managementhadrighttoterminateserviceoftheclaimantashe wasfoundguiltyofmisconduct. IssueNo.1. 7. Ld. ARM argued that the claimant was appointed by managementasCollectionOfficer.Hisdesignationwasofofficer andhewasworkinginsupervisorycapacityandhenceisnota workman. He relied upon (i) [ENTITY] Vs. M/s. Consul [CASE NUMBER] 5/22 ConsolidatedPvt.Ltd.WP(C)9162/2015decidedon23.09.2015 byHon'bleHighCourtofDelhi.(ii)PepsicoIndiaHoldingPvt. Ltd.Vs.[CASE NUMBER], decidedbyHon'bleSupremeCourton06.01.2015. Ontheotherhand,Ld.ARWarguedthatnatureofdutyof theclaimantwastocollectmoneyfromcustomerandtodeposit with management. In this way, he was working as collection agent. Hewasdischargingdutyofmanualnature. Hewasnot workinginsupervisorycapacity. 8. In [ENTITY] (Supra), the workman was doing supervisory work as he was performing work of Senior Commercial Executive and 34 persons were under his supervision. In Pepsico India HoldingPvt.Ltd.(Supra), the workmanwasworkingonthepostofFieldExecutive.Hiswork wassupervisoryinnature.Themajorworkofrepairofthevehicle usedtobedonefromoutside.Theworkofwashingandcleaning ofvehicleswasdonebydriver. Hehadneverdoneanytypeof repairing work. In both cited cases, the claimant was held workman.Inthecaseinhand,itisnodoubtthatthedesignationof theclaimantwasCollectionOfficer.Hisnatureofdutyhasbeen explainedby claimant by deposing that he used to collect loan amount from customers and deposit the same with the [CASE NUMBER] 6/22 management. MW1alsodeposedinparaNo.6of affidavitin evidence that duty of the claimant was to collect money from customersagainstreceiptanddepositthesamewithtreasurerof thecompany.So,WW1andMW1areonthesameplankonthe nature of duty of the claimant. His duty was to collect loan amountfromcustomersanddepositthesamewithmanagement. Hewasdoingmanualjob. Ithasnotcomeinevidenceofany witnessthattheclaimantwasexercisingcontrolandsupervision overotheremployeesorthathehadanyauthoritytotakeaction againsterringemployeeofthemanagement.Hehadnoauthority torecruitanyemployeeforthemanagementortosanctionleaveof anyemployee. Rather,itismentionedinparaNo.2ofreplyon merits of written statement that the claimant was involved in rotationoffundwhichwasnotreported/disclosedbyhimto"his collectionsupervisor". Meaningofthatlineisthattheactivities of the claimant were being supervised by other officials of the company. Aftercollectingtheloanamount,hewastointimate thatfacttothecollectionsupervisor.Suchapersonisdefinitelya workmanasperSection2(s)oftheI.D.Act,1947.Bothcitations relieduponbymanagementarenotapplicableasthosearehaving differentfacts. Thisissueisdecidedinfavourofclaimantand againstmanagement. IssueNo.2: [CASE NUMBER] 7/22 9. Ld.ARWarguedthatcaseofthemanagementisthatthe claimant was found guilty of misconduct and that is why his servicewasterminated.Thefirstallegationagainsthimisthathe hadmisbehavedwithSh.[ENTITY]andMs.[ENTITY] whowereemployeesofthemanagement.Theotherallegationwas thathewasfoundguiltyofrotationoffundsandnondepositof recovered loan amount. Ld. ARW further argued that the management did not conductanyenquiryintothose allegations andstraightwayterminatedhisservice. Henextarguedthatthe managementshouldhavesoughtpermissionofthecourtinwritten statement or by filing an application to lead evidence on misconduct,butitdidnotfileanyapplicationandhence,itisbared fromarguingthattheserviceoftheclaimantwasterminatedon misconduct.Henextarguedthatthemanagementdidnotexamine any person against whom claimant had misbehaved or used derogatorylanguage. Themanagementdidnotplaceonrecord anydocumenttoprovethathewasguiltyofrotationoffundsor thathedidnotdeposittherecoveredloanwiththemanagement. Hereliedupon(i) AmarChakravartyandothersVs.[PRECEDENT]. (ii) Director, CentralandStateFarm,JetsarVs.TheStateofRajasthanand others,[CASE NUMBER] decidedbyHon'bleHigh CourtofRajasthan,JodhpurBenchon29.08.1995. [CASE NUMBER] 8/22 Ontheotherhand,Ld.ARMarguedthatthereisaclause No.6.2inappointmentletterEx.MW1/Bthatafterconfirmation, theterminationcanbeeffectedinwritingbyeitherpartywithout any reason by giving one month's notice. The service of the claimant was terminated as per that clause. Alternatively he argued that the management had conducted enquiry against claimantinwhichhefoundguiltyandthereafter,itinvokedclause No.6.6ofEx.MW1/Btoterminatehisservice.Hereliedupon(i) [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] and (ii) [PRECEDENT] byHon'bleHighCourtofDelhion02.12.2010,toarguethatan employeewhoisguiltyofabusivelanguageandbadbehaviour shouldnotbereinstated. 10. ItiscorrectthatthereisaclauseNo.6.2inappointment letter Ex.MW1/B that after confirmation, the employee can be terminatedinwritingbyeitherpartywithoutgivinganyreasonby giving one month's notice. That clause does not talk about retrenchmentcompensation. [ACT]it isrequiredtogiveonemonth'snoticeinwritingornoticepayin lieuofnotice.Further,itisrequiredtotender/givesalaryfor15 days for every completed year with the management. So, the [CASE NUMBER] 9/22 clauseNo.6.2istotallyincontradictiontoSection25FoftheI.D. [ACT] as it does not make provision for retrenchment compensationandhence,itisvoidtothatextent. 11. Bothpartiesareagreeingonthepointthatthemanagement had issued showcause notice dated 16.02.2002 Mark 2 to the claimantwhichwasrepliedintheformofMarkAdenyingallthe allegations.Thereafter,propercourseforthemanagementwasto appointEnquiryOfficernoticeofwhichwastobegiventothe claimant. Thereafter,themanagementwasrequiredtogivehim intimation of first date of enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the managementwasrequiredtoleadevidencebeforeEnquiryOfficer who would have given opportunity to the claimant to cross examinethewitnessestobeproducedbymanagement.Intheend, theclaimantwouldhavebeengivenopportunitytoleadevidence indefence.Thereisnodocumentonthefilewhichmaysuggest thatanyEnquriyOfficerwasappointedbythemanagement.The enquiryproceedingsarenotonthefile. Infact,noenquirywas conductedandduetothatreason,theenquiryreportisnotonthe file. So,itisheldthatthemanagementhadnotconductedany enquiryagainstclaimantbeforeterminatinghisservice. 12. Intheabsenceofenquiryproceedings,theonusisuponthe management toprovethatitwasnotpossible for ittoconduct [CASE NUMBER] 10/22 enquiryandthatterminationwasjustified. Theproceduretobe followedbymanagementincaseofnoenquirywasexplainedby Apex Court in [ENTITY] and others (Supra) in followingwords: 13. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant,aConstitutionBenchofthisCourtaffirmedthe decisionofthisCourtinShambuNathGoyalV.Bankof Barodaandotherswhereintheissueforconsiderationwas as to at what stage, the management is entitled to seek permissiontoadduceevidenceinjustificationofitsdecision toterminatetheservicesofanemployee. Itwasheldthat therightoftheemployertoadduceadditionalevidence,ina proceedingbeforetheLabourcourtunderSection10ofthe Act, questioning the legality of the order terminating the service must be availed of by the employer by making a properrequestatthetimewhenitfilesitsstatementofclaim orwrittenstatement.Itwasobservedthat: "The management is made aware of the workman'scontentionregardingthedefect in the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence filed by him in the applicationfiledbythemanagementunder [SECTION] of the Act. Then, if the managementchoosestoexerciseitsrightit must purpose without any unreasonable delay." 14. Similarly,inthe[ENTITY]ofM/s.FirestoneTyre& RubberCo(supra),thisCourtobservedthat: "Evenifnoenquiryhasbeenheldbyanemployerorifthe enquiryheldbyhimisfoundtobedefective,theTribunalin [CASE NUMBER] 11/22 ordertosatisfyitselfaboutthelegalityandvalidityofthe order, had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employertoadduceevidenceforthefirsttimejustifyingits action,anditisopentotheemployeetoadduceevidence contra." (See also: [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]". 16.Inviewoftheaforesaidpositioninlaw,theinevitable conclusionisthatwhennoenquiryisconductedbeforethe serviceofaworkmanisterminated,theonustoprovethatit was not possible to conduct the enquiry and that the management was justified because of misconduct by the employee,liesonthemanagement.Itbearsrepetitionthat itisforthemanagementtoprovebyproducingevidence, thattheworkmanisguiltyofmisconductandthattheaction takenbyitisproper.Inthepresentcase,theservicesofthe appellantsworkmenhavingbeenterminatedontheground ofmisconduct,withoutholdingadomesticenquiry,itwould be for the management to adduce evidence to justify its action.Itwillbeopentotheappellantsworkmentoadduce evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, the order passed by the LaburCourt,shiftingtheburdentoproveissueNo.1onthe workmen is fallacious and the High Court should have quashedit. 13. InDirector,CentralandStateFarm,Jetsar(Supra),the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan held that where no domestic enquirywasheldbymanagementorwherethemanagementdoes notreplyupondomesticenquiryheldbyit,thentheemployeris entitledtostraightwayadduceevidencebeforetheLabourCourt [CASE NUMBER] 12/22 justifying its action and the Tribunal is bound to consider the evidencesoadducedbytheemployeronmeritandcanadjudicate thecontroversyonthebasisoftheevidencesoadduced.TheHigh Courtfurtherheldthatbeforeproducingtheevidence,arequest hastobemadebytheemployerbeforetheLabourCourt.Inthe citedcase,nosuchrequestwasmadebytheemployerbeforethe Judge of the Labour Court and hence, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that Labour Court was justified in holding that the dismissal of the employee was invalid because the order of dismissalwaspassedwithoutservinganychargesheetorholding anyenquiry. 14. Inthecaseinhand,themanagementdidnotmakeprayerin written statement that it wanted to prove misconduct of the claimantbyadducingevidence. Withoutseekingpermission,it examinedMW1onthemisconductofclaimantandinthisway,it violatedthecitationofDirector,CentralandStateFarm,Jetsar (supra). 15. As per showcause notice Mark 2, there were two allegations against claimant. The first one was that he had misbehavedwithSh.[ENTITY],ACOVinayKumarandMs. [ENTITY]. Hehadcommittedrotationoffundsandhehad notdepositedtheloanamountcollectedfromthecustomers.The [CASE NUMBER] 13/22 competentwitnessestoprovemisconductwerethepersonswith whom misconduct was committed. As per showcause notice, thosepersonswereSh.[ENTITY],ACOVinayKumarandMs. [ENTITY]. Themanagementdidnotexamineanyofthem and hence, it failed to prove misbehaviour of the claimant. In ordertoproverotationoffundsandnondepositionofloanamount aftercollectingthesamefromthecustomers,themanagementdid notexamineanywitnessortenderanydocumentinevidence.Due tothatreason,ithasfailedtoprovethatclaimantwasguiltyof rotation of funds and nondeposition of loan amount after collectingfromthecustomers. 16. In [PRECEDENT] required into allegations against him and that appropriate punishmentmaybeawardedandhewouldacceptthesame.Inthe caseinhand,theclaimanthaddeniedeveryallegationvidehis reply Mark 3 in response to showcause notice Mark 2. The managementisheavilyrelyinguponapologyletterMark1dated 08.01.2010toprovethatclaimantwasguiltyofmisconduct.That letterwasnotputtotheclaimantincrossexaminationtoknow whetheritwasbearinghissignatureornot.Itwasnotputtothe claimant at the stage of admission/denial of documents before [CASE NUMBER] 14/22 framing of issues. Original of that letter was never produced beforethiscourt.So,MarkM1hasgoneunproved.So,Mark1 cannotbeequatedwithadmissionlettercontainedinabvecited law.Theothercitation MahindraandMahindraLtd.(Supra) comesintoforceonlywhenmisconducthasbeenprovedagainst theworker. Inthecaseinhand,themanagementhasfailedto provemisconduct. 17. Inviewofabovediscussion,thisissueisdecidedinfavour ofclaimantandagainstmanagement. IssueNo.3. 18. Ld. ARW argued that the claimant is jobless since terminationofservice. Hebegivenreliefofreinstatementwith continuityofserviceand100%backwagesandhereliedupon [PRECEDENT] 19. Evenifserviceofaworkmanhasbeenterminatedillegally, thatwouldnotautomaticallyleadtoreinstatementand100%back wages.[PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT], Hon'bleDelhiHighCourtdealt withthequestionofreinstatementandbackwagesandobserved inparagraphs27and28asunder: [CASE NUMBER] 15/22 "27. We find from the decision of the SupremeCourtrenderedinthe1970sand 1980s that reinstatement with back wages was the norm in cases where the terminationoftheservicesoftheworkman was held inoperative. The decisions rendered in the 1990s, including the decision of the Constitution Bench in the PunjabLandDevelopmentandReclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh seem to suggest that compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is now the norm. Inanycase,sinceweareboundto follow the decision of the Constitution Bench, we, therefore, conclude that reinstatement is not the inevitable consequence of quashing an order of termination;compensationcanbeawarded inlieuofreinstatementandbackwages. 28. Consideringthefactsofthiscase,we are persuaded to award compensation in lieuofreinstatementandbackwagestothe workman" In [PRECEDENT] Inparagraph16,itwasobservedasunder: "Apart from the aforementioned error of law,inourconsideredopinion,theLabour Court and consequently the High Court [CASE NUMBER] 16/22 completely misdirected themselves insofar astheyfailedtotakeintoconsiderationthat relieftobegrantedintermsofsection11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Onlybecausereliefbywayofreinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be grantedautomatically". In [PRECEDENT] Hon,ble Justice [ENTITY]: 11.Havingconsideredtherivalsubmissions ofthecounselsfortheparties,Idonotfind any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court. It is a settled position of law that even if termination has been held to be illegal,reinstatementwithfullbackwages is not to be granted automatically. The Labour Court is within its right to mould the relief by granting a lumpsum compensation. In fact, I note that the Labour Court has relied upon three judgments propounding the law that the Labour Court can mould a relief by granting lump sum compensation; the Labour Court is entitled to grant relief havingregardtofactsandcircumstancesof eachcase. 12. Further, the Supreme Court in the followingjudgmentsheldasunder: (a) In the matter reported as [PRECEDENT] "However, even assuming that there had beenaviolationofSections25Gand25H of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an award of reinstatementwithentirebackwages.This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under [SECTION] must be exercisedjudiciously.Theworkmanmustbe employed by State within the meaning of [SECTION] of the [ACT], having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employeesintermsoftheprovisionsofthe rules for recruitment framed by it. The respondent had not regularly served the
appellant. The job was not of perennial nature.Therewasnothingtoshowthathe, when his services were terminated any personwhowasjuniortohiminthesame category, had been retained. His services weredispensedwithasearlyasin1987.It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages. We, therefore,areoftheopinionthatinterestof justicewouldbesubservedifinsteadandin placeofreinstatementofhisservices,asum ofRs75,000isawardedtotherespondent bywayofcompensationashasbeendone bythisCourtinanumberofitsjudgments."
(b) In the matter reported as Nagar Mahapalikav.StateofU.P.,(2006)5SCC 127,thecourthasstated:
"23.Noncompliancewiththeprovisionsof [ACT],although, mayleadto the grantofa reliefofreinstatementwithfullbackwages and continuity of service in favour of the retrenched workmen, the same would not mean that such a relief is to be granted automaticallyorasamatterofcourse. 25 The appellant herein has clearly stated that the appointments of the respondentshavebeenmadeinviolationof the provisions of the Adhiniyam. An appointment made in violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam is void. The same, however, although would not mean that the provisions of the [ACT] the purpose of determinationofthequestionastowhether theterminationofworkmenfromservicesis legalornotbutthesameshouldhavetobe consideredtobeanimportantfactorinthe matter of grant of relief. The Municipal Corporation deals with public money. Appointmentsoftherespondentsweremade for carrying out the work of assessment. Such assessments are done periodically. Theirservices,thus,shouldnothavebeen directed to be continued despite the requirements therefor having come to an end.It,therefore,inourconsideredview,is notacasewherethereliefofreinstatement shouldhavebeengranted."
(c)InthematterreportedasTalwaraCoop.
Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 486, the court has stated:
"8.Grantofareliefofreinstatement,itis trite,isnotautomatic.Grantofbackwages isalsonotautomatic.TheIndustrialCourts whileexercisingtheirpowerunder[SECTION] of the [ACT] are required to strike a balance in a situation of this nature. For the said purpose, certain relevant factors, as for example, nature of service, the mode and manner of recruitment viz. whether the appointmenthadbeenmadeinaccordance withthestatutoryrulessofarasapublic sector undertaking is concerned, etc., shouldbetakenintoconsideration."
(d)InthematterreportedasJagbirSinghv. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, [CASE NUMBER]
"7.Itistruethattheearlierviewofthis Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the terminationofanemployeewasfoundtobe illegal,thereliefofreinstatementwithfull back wages would ordinarily follow. However,inrecentpast,therehasbeena shiftinthelegalpositionandinalongline ofcases,thisCourthasconsistentlytaken theviewthatreliefbywayofreinstatement withbackwagesisnotautomaticandmay be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situationeventhoughtheterminationofan employee is in contravention of the prescribedprocedure
14.AnorderofretrenchmentpassedinviolationofSection 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatementshouldnot,however,beautomaticallypassed. Theawardofreinstatementwithfullbackwagesinacase wheretheworkmanhascompleted240daysofworkina yearprecedingthedateoftermination,particularly,daily wagershasnotbeenfoundtobeproperbythisCourtand instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has [ENTITY] postandapermanentemployee."
20. Theclaimantdidnotdeposeaboutanyfinancialinstitution visited by him in connection with reemployment. There are variousprivatesectorbankswheretheclaimantwouldhavefound reemployment. There are several non banking financial companiesareinthemarkettofinancehomeandotherloans.He did not pinpoint any NBFC visited by him in connection with employment.Histestimonythatheisjoblessafterterminationis general and vague. Had he tried seriously, he would have definitelygotjobofsamestatusandsalary.Hehadworkedwith themanagementfrom20.08.2007to01.04.2010i.e.foraboutthree yearsatthelastdrawnsalaryofRs.25,567/.Takingintoaccount allthesefacts,alumpsumcompensationofRs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh Only) is granted the claimant. The management is directedtopaythesaidamounttotheclaimantwithinamonth fromthedateofpublicationoftheaward,failingwhichitshallbe liabletopayinterestonit@9percentperannumfromtodaytill realization. Parties to bear their own costs. Award is passed accordingly.
21. TherequisitenumberofcopiesbesenttotheGovt.ofNCT ofDelhiforpublicationoftheaward.Filebeconsignedtorecord room.
DictatedtotheSteno&announced(UMEDSINGHGREWAL) intheopenCourton01.09.2016.POLCXVII/KKD,DELHI.