BEFORE THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT XVII:KKD:DELHI DID No.26/07. Unique ID No. 02402C0136882007 [ENTITY] d/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand C/o Shahdara General Udyog Shramik Union ( Regd), 1/2481, Gali No. 26, Moti Ram Road, Modern Shahdara, Delhi110 032 Claimant Versus i) M/s [ENTITY] 51/6, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 through Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Partner Management No.1 ii) M/s Chetan Exports, 51/6, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 through Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Partner Management No.2 DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.02.2007 DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 23.09.2013 DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 23.09.2013 A W A R D : 1. This is a direct industrial dispute filed by the claimant under DID 26/07 1/24 Section 2A read with Section 10 ( 4A) of the [ACT] (hereinafter "the Act") against the management. 2. In her claim, it is submitted by the claimant that she was working with management No.1 since 07.08.2003 on the post of Checker (Final). Her last drawn salary was Rs.2600/ per month. Both the managements are engaged in same kind of business. They are working under the same roof, have a single office without any partition and employees of one management work for the other management also, as per the oral directions given by the managements. The employees are made to work in both the managements in such a way that it is difficult for the employee to find out as to whose employee he/she is, even after working for the managements for years. However, both the managements have been separately registered under [ACT] and EPF. The managements never prepared the records of the claimant properly, never issued any appointment letter nor it ever gave the other legal facilities like annual leaves, causal leaves, minimum wages, designation as per the work of the claimant, salary as per the designation of the claimant, [ACT], EPF, overtime, bonus, leave book, wages slip, attendance card, etc, etc. Whenever the claimant demanded the same, the managements gave only false assurances. The managements obtained signatures of the DID 26/07 2/24 claimant on some blank papers, printed forms, vouchers with revenue stamps and receipt for full and final settlement on the pretext of giving these facilities. The claimant has never left the job nor she has taken full and final settlement. When the claimant with other female employees of the management demanded the aforesaid legal facilities with arrears of bonus for the last 45 years, managements terminated her services w.e.f 23.10.2006 without any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation or payment, illegally and unjustifiably. They also withheld the salary of the claimant for the months of September and October 2006. The termination is in violation of [SECTION] of the Act. Employees junior to the claimant are still working with the managements, which is in violation of [SECTION] of the Act. The managements have also appointed some other person in place of the claimant after her termination, which is in violation of [SECTION] of the Act. The claimant with other females employees of the managements sent a complaint to the Conciliation Officer, Pusa Road and a demand notice through Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate to the managements. The managements did not reinstate the claimant despite receipt of the notice. The claimant with other female employees of the managements became a member of Shahdara General Udyog Shramik Union (Regd.) on 03.11.06 and again lodged a complaint in the Labour Office through the Union and raised the demand in respect of the DID 26/07 3/24 bonus. The Union also sent a demand notice dated 03.011.06 to the managements by registered AD as well as UPC. Despite service of the demand notice, no reply was sent by the managements. On the joint complaint dated 23.10.06, the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] approached the managements on 06.11.06, where the Proprietor of the managements Sh. [ENTITY] refused to reinstate the claimant and the other similarly terminated female employees but stated that he shall make the payment of earned wages on 07.11.06 in the factory itself. This statement of Sh. [ENTITY] was recorded by the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] which was signed by Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], ( a representative of the Union). However, only the earned wages for October 2006, and that too less than minimum wages, was paid on 08.11.06 in the presence of Labour Inspectors Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], which the claimant accepted under protest, which was noted by the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] in his proceedings. It is only on 08.11.06 i.e. at the time of payment of earned wages that the claimant and other employees came to know for the first time that the managements have shown 20 persons to be employees of M/s. [ENTITY] and the remaining three to the employees of M/s. Chetan Exports. When the records of both the managements were checked by the Labour Inspector, it was found that the name of only four employees were registered in the records of M/s. DID 26/07 4/24 [ENTITY] ( Management No.1) and there were only 3 names in the register of M/s. Chetan Exports (Management No.2). The managements failed to produce records of other 16 employees. It was learnt that no records of these 16 employees was prepared. The earned wages for the month of October 2006 of these 16 employees were paid on a plain paper after obtaining their signatures. The managements admitted these 16 employees also to be the employees of M/s. [ENTITY] (Management No.1). The claimant is unemployed since the date of her termination despite her best efforts. Hence, the present claim seeking reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services. 3. Both the managements contested the claim by filing a joint written statement. It is submitted by the managements that both the managements are two different entities having different sets of staff and management. They are maintaining separate books of account and other statutory records in respect of each and every employee employed in them. They are having no working integrity with each other. There was never any relationship of employee and employer between the parties. The claimant is a total stranger for both the managements. The legal notice sent by the claimant was duly replied DID 26/07 5/24 by the managements. The other contents of the claim are denied by the managements who have sought dismissal of the claim with costs. 4. In her rejoinder, the claimant has controverted the pleas of the managements and has reiterated those of her claim. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties, if o its effect? OPW. 2. If answer to issue No.1 above is in affirmative, whether services of workwoman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so, its effect? OPW 3. Relief 6. The claimant examined two witnesses including herself in support of her case whereas although the managements filed an affidavit of Sh. [ENTITY], the witness was not produced for his crossexamination. Evidence of the managements was closed by the order of the Court. DID 26/07 6/24 7. Joint written arguments were filed by the managements who have relied upon the following authorities in support of their contentions: [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. b) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. c) 2009 (5) [CASE NUMBER] M/s. [PRECEDENT]. d) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. P. Ltd. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative for workman (ARW) relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions: a) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. b) [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY] Vs Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute. c) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and Anr. d) 2002IILLJ 66, [ENTITY] and Others vs DID 26/07 7/24 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Another. 9. I have heard Authorised Representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the record including the written arguments filed by the managements as well as the authorities relied upon by both the parties. 10. My issuewise findings are as follows: ISSUE NO. 1 11. The burden of proving this issue was on the claimant. In her affidavit filed as examinationinchief, the claimant as WW1 fully supported her case as stated in her claim and relied upon complaint dated 23.10.06 sent by the claimant with certain other persons to the Conciliation Officer as Ex WW1/1, legal notice dated 23.10.06 sent on behalf of claimant as well as certain other persons to the managements as Mark A, postal receipts of Mark A as Ex WW1/2 and Ex WW1/3, two acknowledge cards in respect of the legal notice both as Ex WW1/4, complaint dated 03.11.06 sent by the Shahdara General [ENTITY] (regd) on behalf of claimant and certain other persons DID 26/07 8/24 to the Labour Department as Ex WW1/5, demand notice dated 03.11.06 on behalf of claimant and certain other persons forwarded by Sh. [ENTITY], Secretary of the Union to the managements as Ex WW1/6, annexure () to Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/7, annexure () to Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/8, another copy of the same notice as Ex WW1/9, carbon copy of Ex WW1/7 as Ex WW1/10, carbon copy of Ex WW1/8 as Ex WW1/11, two postal receipts in respect of Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/12 and Ex WW1/13 respectively, one UPC receipt in respect of Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/14, another notice dated 03.11.06 sent by Sh. [ENTITY], Secretary of the Union on behalf of claimant and some other persons to the Bonus Officer as Ex WW1/15, report dated 18.12.06 of Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] as Ex WW1/16 and claim filed by the claimant and certain other persons before the Conciliation Officer as Ex WW1/17. 12. In her crossexamination, she stated that whatever proof she had of her employment with M/s [ENTITY], she has placed on record and that she did not know whether the management used to maintain records of the employees or not. She denied that she never worked with the management and that the report of the Labour Inspector Ex WW1/16 is false. DID 26/07 9/24 13. WW2 is Sh. [ENTITY], General Secretary of Shahdara General [ENTITY] (Regd). In his affidavit filed as examinationinchief, he stated that 23 terminated employees of the management including the claimant joined the Union after 23.10.06 and authorised him for future proceedings against the managements. All 23 employees including the claimant made a complaint dated 03.011.06 through Union to Assistant Labour Commissioner and also sent a demand notice on the same day to the Bonus Officer for payment of bonus. On the complaint dated 23.10.06, the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] with Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] with him ( WW2) went to the Office of the managements where Sh. [ENTITY], partner of both the managements told the Labour Inspector in his presence and in presence of all the 23 employees that he is not ready to take back all the 23 employees on duty and that he shall make payment of earned wages of pending months to 23 employees on 07.11.06 in the factory premises. This statement of Sh. [ENTITY] was noted by the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] in his official register and signatures of Sh. [ENTITY] and that of WW2 were taken on the statement. The payment was made on 08.11.06 by Sh. [ENTITY] in the presence of Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY], Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY], WW2 to all the 23 employees, pertaining to wages of October 2006 and overtime. Sh. [ENTITY] had admitted before the Labour Inspector DID 26/07 10/24 Sh. [ENTITY] in his (WW2's) presence that out of the 23 employees, 20 were employees of M/s. [ENTITY] and remaining three were employees of M/s. Chetan Export and that the managements had not prepared records of most of the employees. WW2 relied upon the same documents as relied upon by WW1 including the report of the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] as Ex WW1/6. 14. The testimony of WW2 goes unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted as there is no crossexamination of WW2 at all. Hence, the testimony of WW2 is deemed to be admitted by the managements. 15. As noted above, although the managements filed an affidavit of Sh. [ENTITY], the witness did not appear for his cross examination. Hence, the affidavit cannot be read. The result is that no evidence has been led by both the managements. 16. In [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as follows. "10. It is well settled that the primary burden of proof to establish a plea rests on a person so claiming. In this behalf reference can be appropriately made to the judicial DID 26/07 11/24 pronouncement in [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] (para 49) [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] I.C. 398 [PRECEDENT]. Thus burden lies on a person claiming the establishment to be an industry to place positive facts before the court in this behalf. For this reason, the primary burden to establish the relationship of employment also lies on the workman who is claiming the same. 11. In this behalf, it was only if the respondent had discharged
the onus and burden of proof cast on him and had place some material on record to indicate that he had been employed by the petitioner that the petitioner would have been required to displace the case set up by the respondent by leading positive evidence.
12. In [PRECEDENT]., it was held by the Apex Court that it is only if the initial burden of proof, which was on the workman, was discharged to some extent, that a finding can be returned in respect of the defence of management. Furthermore, a plea having been set up by the workman, the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had been employed by the petitioner in the claim capacity on the stated terms. The circumstances in which the court may draw an adverse inference against the management have also been succinctly set down thus :
"22. An adverse inference, therefore, was drawn for non production of the attendance register alone, and not for nonproduction of the wage slips. Reference to "other relevant documents" must be held to be vague as the appellant herein had not been called upon to produce any other documents for the said purpose.
23. It appears that the learned Tribunal considered the matter solely from the angle that the appellant had failed to prove its plea of abandonment of service by the respondents.
24. The question came up for consideration before this Court recently in SO [ENTITY] wherein it was held ([CASE NUMBER]) :
"15. A Court of law even in a case where provisions of the [ACT] apply, may presume or may not presume that if a party despite possession of the best evidence had not produced the same, it would have gone against his contentions. The matter, however, would be different where despite direction by a Court the evidence is withheld. Presumption as to adverse inference for nonproduction of evidence is always optional and one of the factors which is required to be taken into consideration is the background of facts involved in the lis. The presumption, thus, is not obligatory because notwithstanding the intentional non production, other circumstances may exist upon which such intentional nonproduction may be found to be justifiable on some reasonable grounds."
25. Referring to the decision of this Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v/s Raj Narain (Siri [ENTITY] case, SCC P. 199, Para 19) this Court observed :
"19. Furthermore a party in order to get benefit of the provisions contained in [SECTION] of the [ACT], must place some evidence in support of his case. Here the respondent failed to do so."
26. In Hariram, this Court observed (SCC P. 250, Para
11) :
"11. The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously."
27. As noticed herein before, in this case also the respondents did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference.
Burden of proof
28. The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service. The tribunal did not consider the question from that angle. It held that the burden of proof was upon the appellants on the premise that they have failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service stating :
"It is admitted case of the parties that all the first parties under the reference CRs Nos. 1 to 11 of 1992 have been appointed by the second party as ticca mazdoors. As per the first parties, they had worked continuously from April, 1980 to December, 1982. But the second party had denied the above said claim of continuous service of the first parties on the ground that the first parties has not been appointed as regular workmen but they were working only as temporary parttime workers as a ticca mazdoor and their services were required whenever necessity arose that too on the leave vacancies of regular employees. But as strongly contended by the Counsel for the first party, since the second party had denied the above said claim of continuous period of service, it is for the second party to prove through the records available with them as the relevant records could be available only with the second party."
29. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted that the appellant had denied the respondents' claim as regards their continuous service.
30. In [PRECEDENT], it was stated :
"3 In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On the ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside."
31. In Sri [ENTITY] this Court held : ([CASE NUMBER], Para
13) "13. The provisions of the [ACT] per se are not applicable in an industrial adjudication. The general principles of it are, however, applicable. It is also imperative for the Industrial Tribunal to see that the principles of natural justice are complied with. The burden of proof was on the respondent workman herein to show that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment. In terms of [SECTION] of the [ACT], an order retrenching a workman would not be effective unless the conditions precedent therefore, are satisfied. [SECTION] postulates the following conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for effecting a valid retrenchment :
(i) one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof ;
(ii) payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months."
It was further observed : ([CASE NUMBER]) "14 As noticed hereinbefore, the burden of proof was on the workman. From the award, it does not appear that the workman adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that he complied with the requirements of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Apart from examining himself in support of his contention he did not produce or call for any document from the office of the appellant herein including the muster rolls. It is improbable that a person working a local authority would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to support his claim before the Tribunal. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment and the remuneration received by him for working during the aforementioned period. He did not examine any other witness in support of his case."
32. Yet again in Hariram, it was opined : ([CASE NUMBER]) "10 We cannot but bear in mind the fact that the initial burden of establishing the factum of their continuous work for 240 days in a year rests with the respondent applicants."
xxxxxxxxxx
14. Engagement and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of an appointment letter, a written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave record, deposit of provident fund contribution and employees state insurance contributions etc. The same can be produced and proved by the workman or he can call upon and cause the same to be produced and proved by calling for witnesses who are required to produce and prove these records. The workman can even make an appropriate application calling upon the management to call such records in respect of his employment to be produced. In these circumstances, if the management then fails to produce such records, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the management and in favour of the workman.
15. In the instant case, the workman filed an affidavit by way of evidence on the 29 th April, 1993 and closed his evidence.
Thus, the only evidence in support of the plea of employment was the self serving affidavit filed by the workman and nothing beyond that to support his claimed plea of service of seven years. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], such affidavit by itself is wholly insufficient to discharge the burden of proof on the workman. (underlining by me).
17. It is clear from the authority that initial burden of proving relationship of employer and employee between the parties is on the claimant and that a finding in respect of the defence of the managements can be returned only if this initial burden is discharged to some extent by the claimant. Further, a mere affidavit of the claimant is wholly insufficient to discharge this burden on the claimant.
18. Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/15, Mark A and Ex. WW1/17 are only self serving documents of the claimant. They do not, in any manner, show relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
19. Great emphasis was laid by Ld. ARW on Ex. WW1/16 in this regard. Ex. WW1/16 is a letter dated 18.12.2006 sent by the Labour Inspector, [ENTITY] to Shri [ENTITY], General Secretary of the Shahdara General Udyog Shramik Union (Regd.) with regard to (a) the complaint dated 23.10.2006 made jointly by the claimant and several other persons and (b) the complaint dated 03.11.2006 made by the union on behalf of the claimant and several other persons, against both the managements herein. The letter states, interalia, that on 08.11.2006, the Labour Inspector got paid earned wages and overtime of the claimant and the other persons which was accepted by them under protest and that Shri [ENTITY], partner of the managements admitted all these persons (including the claimant) to be his employees but refused to reinstate them and that the managements failed to produce any record in respect of any of the persons (including the claimant), for which they (the managements) were being prosecuted in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
20. Shri [ENTITY], Labour Inspector, who has written the letter Ex. WW1/16, has not been examined as a witness by the claimant. Hence, Ex. WW1/16 has not been proved as per law. During the arguments, it was submitted by ld. ARW that he filed an application for summoning the said Labour Inspector, which was also allowed by this Court. However, when notice was sent to Shri [ENTITY], it was reported that he has retired and that is why he was not examined as a witness. I do not find any force in the contention. In case Ex. WW1/16 was actually prepared by Shri [ENTITY], it was in discharge of his official duties and, thus, the records must be available with the Labour Department. Even if Shri [ENTITY] had retired, the record could have been produced and proved by some other person from the Labour Department having custody of the record. Hence, the contention of Ld. ARW in this regard is rejected.
21. Even otherwise, in the entire Ex.WW1/16, it is nowhere stated as to who, out of the persons mentioned in the letter, including the claimant, was an employee of which management. It is nowhere stated in the entire Ex. WW1/16 that claimant was admitted to be an employee of management No. 1. From the report Ex. WW1/16, the possibility that she was admitted to be an employee of management No. 2 by Sh. [ENTITY] cannot be ruled out. It is pertinent to mention here that in the claim itself, the claimant has mentioned that the managements are separately registered for [ACT] and EPF and that in addition to Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], who are partners in both the managements, Sh. [ENTITY] is also a partner in management No.1. Hence, both the managements are separate entities. There cannot be any doubt that since the specific case of the claimant is that she was an employee of management No. 1, she was required to prove relationship of employer and employee between her and management No. 1 only and it is not sufficient for her to prove that she was an employee of either management No. 1 or management No. 2.
22. WW2 (Shri [ENTITY]) also relied upon Ex. WW1/16 as the only document to prove relationship of employer and employee between the parties. As held by me above, Ex. WW1/16 does not prove that the claimant was an employee of management No. 1 as claimed by her in her claim.
23. Apart from Ex. WW1/16, even in the oral testimony of the claimant and WW2 Shri [ENTITY], it is not specifically stated that claimant was admitted to be an employee of management No. 1 by Shri [ENTITY].
24. The result is that except the affidavit of the claimant, there is nothing placed on record by the claimant to prove the relationship. This affidavit, as held in the authority noted above, is wholly insufficient to prove the relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management No. 1.
25. It was then, contended by Ld. ARW that he filed an application seeking a direction to managements to produce attendance register, wages register, bonus register, leave register, balance sheet, cash book and ledger, all from the year 1995 to 2007. His contention is that adverse inference should be drawn against the managements for non production of the aforesaid records. The record reveals that certain records were brought by the managements on 30.11.2009 and 26.02.2010, which were shown to ld. ARW. Thereafter, the application was never pressed by ld. ARW. No direction was ever given by this Court to the managements to produce any of the records sought to be summoned by the claimant. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the managements and thus, the contention of Ld. ARW in this regard is rejected.
26. I have carefully gone through the authorities relied upon by ld. ARW. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down in the authorities, but it is a settled law that each case is to be decided according to its own facts. I am of the view that facts in the present case are materially different from those in the authorities. No principles contrary to those applied by me above have been laid down in any of the authorities. In M/s. Nicks ( India ) Tools (supra), [ENTITY] (supra) and U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., relationship of employer and employee between the parties was not disputed. This is not the case here. In [ENTITY] and Others (supra), the factum of inspection of the management by the Labour Inspector was not disputed by the management and some record was produced by the management itself which corroborated the contents of the Ex.W8 and hence Ex. W6 and W8 were held to be proved as is clear from paras 8 & 9 of the authority. This is not so in the present case. Hence, with great respect, I am of the view that none of the authorities relied upon by the claimant is applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, I reserve my opinion about the applicability or otherwise of the authorities relied upon by the managements.
27. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the claimant has failed to prove relationship of employer and employee between her and management No. 1. The issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the managements and against the claimant.
ISSUE NO. 2.
28. The burden of proving this issue was on the claimant. As noted above, while deciding issue No. 1, I have held that claimant has failed to prove relationship of employer and employee between her and management No. 1. Hence, there cannot be any question of termination of services by the claimant by the management, much less illegally and / or unjustifiably. The issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the managements and against the claimant. ISSUE NO. 3.
29. In view of my decision on issues No. 1 and 2, there cannot be any doubt that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. The claim is, therefore, dismissed.
30. However, a perusal of the record shows that costs were imposed on the managements several times which have not been paid by them. A cost of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand Only) was imposed on 30.08.12 and a cost of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) was imposed on 30.10.12. During the arguments, it was contended by Ld. [ENTITY] that the leading of evidence by the managements was made subject to these costs and, at best, the evidence of the managements can be closed for non payment of these costs and, thus, the managements are not required to pay these costs. I do not find any merits in the contention. The costs were adjournment costs which have to be paid by the managements. Hence, the managements are directed to pay the aforesaid costs of Rs.7000/ (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) to the claimant within one month from the date of publication of this award, failing which both the managements shall jointly and severally be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from today till realization.
31. The requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the Government of NCT of Delhi for its publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated to the Steno and announced in the open Court on 23.09.2013. ([ENTITY]) POLCXVII/KKD/DELHI