IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY]: PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURTXIX (EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI [CASE NUMBER] UNIQUE I.D. NO. 02402C0 246892011 Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Kesar Shah R/o H.No. 58, B Block Gali No. 2, Baba Haridass Geetanjali Enclave PBC Market, Jharoda Colony Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110041 C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) 170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji New Delhi 110019 Claimant/Workman Vs M/s [ENTITY] WZ572 D, Naraina New Delhi 110028 Management Date of institution : 16.08.2011 Date of reserving the award : 21.05.2013 Date of Award : 24.05.2013 Ref. No. F.24 (198/11)/SWD/Lab./41854188 dt. 28.06.2011 AWARD The industrial dispute between the parties was referred by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for adjudication in [CASE NUMBER] Page 1 of 5 exercise of powers conferred by [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] (hereinafter referred as 'Act') read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour Notification No. F.1/31/616/Estt./2008/7458 dated 3rd March 2009 to Labour Court No. XII with following terms of reference : "Whether services of Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Kesar Shah have been illegally/and or unjustifiably terminated by the management, and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?" 2. On service of courtnotice, the claimant/workman filed his statement of claim with the prayer for issuing directions to the management to reinstate him back on duty with continuity of service and back wages along with other consequential benefits submitting that he was employed with the management as 'Sample Tailor' since 18.11.2006 on monthly wages of Rs. 6448/. He has alleged that management did not provide the legal facilities such as yearly leaves, bonus, overtime etc. and on his repeated demands for the said legal facilities, his services were illegally terminated on 16.02.2011 withholding his earned wages w.e.f. 01.02.2011 to 15.02.2011. He sent a demand notice dated 16.02.2011 to the management through registered AD post but it was not replied. He filed complaint with the Area Labour Commissioner but the workman was not reinstated in service. He filed claim before the Conciliation Officer but it failed. He claims to be unemployed since his alleged termination and could not get any job despite efforts. Hence the present claim. [CASE NUMBER] Page 2 of 5 3. The notice of the claim was issued to the management who filed written statement asserting that the workman was appointed w.e.f. 01.09.2009 and that the management never terminated his services. Other allegations were denied specifically and categorically. 4. Workman filed rejoinder to the said written statement and from the pleadings of the parties, following issues are hereby framed on 07.09.2012 as under: ISSUES: 1.
Whether the workman himself left the services of the management on 16.02.2011? OPM
2. Whether the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management? OPW
3. Relief
5. Thereafter, no one appeared on behalf of the management for several dates despite opportunity and thus, management was proceeded ex parte on 21.05.2013. Workman examined himself as WW1 in exparte evidence and closed the same.
6. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. AR for the workman and have carefully gone through the records.
7. The workman has placed on record complaint made to the Asst. Labour Commissioner as Ex. WW1/1, report of Labour Inspector Ex. WW1/2, Claim statement filed before Conciliation Officer Ex. WW1/3, demand notice dated 16.02.2011 Ex. WW1/4 and its postal receipts Ex. WW1/5 & 6 respectively. He has also placed on record a copy of cheque dated 07.05.2007 for Rs. 6550/ issued in his favour as Mark A. He has also placed on record copy of the ESIC form Ex. WW1/8 which bears the stamp of the management. These documents prove his employment with the management as its employee.
8. All the above facts have remained unrebutted and uncontroverted in the testimony of the workman which clearly show that the services of the workman have been illegally terminated, in violation of provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. There is nothing to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the workman.
9. It has also been pleaded by the workman and also deposed by him that since his termination he is unemployed and has failed to get alternative employment despite efforts made by him. In [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] it was held that reinstatement is an exception and normally the court must give a lump sum amount towards compensation instead of a reinstatement.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments, instead of reinstatement with full back wages, the workman is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/ which the management shall pay to the workman within 30 days of the publication of the Award failing which it shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till the actual payment.
Reference stands answered accordingly. Copy of award be sent for publication. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court Dated: 24th day of May 2013 ([ENTITY]) PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURTXIX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI