1 IN THE COURT OF Ms. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS: NEW DELHI LIR [CASE NUMBER] INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN :- [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] W/o Sh. Shobha Kant Pathak Through:-All India General Mazdoor Trade Union ( Registered), at 170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 R/o C-70, Gali No:4, Harful Vihar, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi [ENTITY] VERSUS 1. M/s [ENTITY], Plot No:1258, Gali No:9, Kapashera, Near Deputy Commissioner Office, New Delhi-110037 2. M/s [ENTITY] Plot No:11, Sector-7, IMT Manaser, Gurgaon, Haryana. 3. M/s [ENTITY] Management Date of receiving of reference : 13-02-2012 Date of Final Arguments : 20-05-2019 Date of final Award : 30-05-2019 AWARD 1. The Dy. Labour Commissioner (S-W), Government of NCT of Delhi vide its order No. F.24(487)11/SWD/Lab./8660-8665, [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. 2 dated 28-12-2011, referred an industrial dispute of present worker with the above mentioned managements to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: "Whether there existed an employer employee relationship between the management and [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] W/o Sh. Shoba Kant Pathak and if so, whether services of said [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management;and if so, to what relier is she entitled ?" 2. Notice of the reference was issued to the [ENTITY] and she had filed the Statement of Claim. Brief facts as stated in the statement of claim are that the Work-lady had been working with the Managements as "Finishing Final Checker" since 24-03-2004. Her last drawn wages were Rs.5160/- per month. It is stated by Work-lady that during the tenure of her service with the Managements she worked honestly and she neither gave any chance of complaint to the Managements nor any memo or charge-sheet was issued to her by the Management. It is stated that the management has not been given the legal facilities to the workman like appointment letter, leave book, weekly and yearly leave, overtime, increase in salary, transport allowance, house rent allowance, bonus and identity proof etc. and when the Work-lady demanded the said facilities from the management, the management got annoyed and terminated the services of the Work- lady, without giving her any notice, on 17-08-2011 and without paying him her earned wages from 01-08-2011 to 16-08-2011. It is stated by Work-lady that management had got signed forcibly certain documents from the Work-lady regarding which she had [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. 3 made a complaint to the local police against the management. It is further stated by the Work-lady that the management without giving her any transfer letter used to get work done by the Work- lady from the other management, therefore, the other management have been impleaded as party in the present case. 3. It is averred that Work-lady has filed a complaint, through his labour union, before the Labour Department but despite the efforts of conciliation officer the workman was not taken back at the services nor his dues were paid by the management, therefore, the present case has been referred to this Hon'ble Court by the concerned Dy. Labour Commissioner. 4. It is stated that workman has got issued a demand letter dt. 26-08-2011 to the management for her reinstatement with full back wages but the management did not reply to the said demand notice. The Work-lady stated to have also filed a written complaint in the office of Labour Office for her reinstatement with full back wages but their also the management has refused to take back the Work-lady in the services and also refused to pay her earned wages. 5. It is alleged that the termination of the Work-lady by the Management is illegal and she is unemployed . The Work-lady has claimed relief of reinstatement with full back wages. 6. Notice of the statement of claim was issued to the Managements. All the three managements have filed their separate written statements. 7. In his written statement the management no:1 M/s [ENTITY] has stated that there is no relationship of master and [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. 4 servant between the answering management and the claimant as the claimant had never served the answering management in any capacity or at any point of time. It is submitted that answering management has been impleaded as party in the present case only in order to harass and negotiate and extract money from the answering management. It is further stated that answering management has no connection or association whatsoever with management no:2 and 3 i.e. M/s [ENTITY] and M/s Trend Setters. It is submitted that reference sent by the government is mechanical reference showing all the respondents as the
employers. It is stated that answering management has duly replied the demand notice sent by the claimant to them vide their reply dt. 09-09-2011. Management no:1 denied that Labour Inspector asked the answering management to keep the claimant on duty. It is submitted that on the visit of labour inspector, he was apprised by the management about the factum of non- existence of the relationship between the claimant and the answering management. It is stated that the claim of the claimant is absolutely false, baseless, unlawful and hence denied.
8. Management no:2 M/s [ENTITY] has also filed their written statement and it is stated that their establishment was closed down w.e.f. 30-06-2011 and notice to this effect was sent to the Labour Department and other connected Departments like EPF, ESI and Chief Inspector of Factories intimating their closure. It is submitted that at the time of its closure the management has paid all the dues to their workers in full and final settlement as payable under the law against the receipts executed by the workers. It is stated that the work-lady herein had [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. resigned from the services of her own on 30-06-2011 and all the terminal dues were duly paid to the claimant amounting to Rs.27140/- vide cheque no:979971 dt. 25-07-2011, drawn at State Bank of India, Mayapuri, New Delhi. It is submitted that the work-lady is guilty of suppressing material facts from this court. It is stated that the claim of the claimant is absolutely false, baseless, unlawfull and hence denied.
9. In his written statement the management no:3 M/s Trend Setters has stated that there is no relationship of master and servant between the answering management and the claimant as the claimant had never served the answering management in any capacity or at any point of time. It is submitted that answering management has been impleaded as party in the present case only in order to harass and negotiate and extract money from the answering management. It is further stated that answering management has no connection or association whatsoever with management no:1 and 2. It is submitted that reference sent by the government is bad in law and same has been made mechanically without application of mind. It is stated that answering management has duly replied the demand notice sent by the claimant to them vide their reply dt. 09-09-2011. It is stated that the claim of the claimant is absolutely false, baseless, unlawful and hence denied.
10. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for trial on 08-10-2013:-
(1) Whether there exists relationship of employer-
employee between the workman and management no:1 & 3 ? OPW [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. (2) Whether the workman received full and final dues in settlement of her entire claim from management no:2 ? OPM-2 (3) Whether the management no:2 has since been closed ? OPM-2 (4) Whether the services of the workman were illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated and if yes, by which of the management ? OPW (5) Relief.
11. In order to prove his case the claimant/worklady has examined herself as WW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A which bears her signature at point A and B and in her evidenciary affidavit WW1 has reiterated the contents of her claim. [ENTITY] has relied upon the documents Ex.WW1/1 i.e. statement of claim filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/2 Demand notice dt. 26-08-2011, three postal receipts Ex.WW1/3 to Ex. WW1/5 and ESI Card Ex.WW1/6(OSR).
The worklady/WW1 was cross examined at length by the AR of the management.
12. The management no:2 has examined Sh. [ENTITY], who is the attorney of [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], Legal heirs of late Sh. [ENTITY], erstwhile Proprietor of management no:2 M/s [ENTITY] as M2W1. M2W1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. M2W1/A bearing his signature at point A and B. M2W1 has reiterated the contents of the written statement. Photocopy of the Power of Attorney in favour of M2W1 is Ex. M2sW1/1 (OSR). Mark M1 is photocopy [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. of factory closure information dt. 25-02-2012 to the Labour Department.M2W1 has also relief upon the documents already exhibited during the cross examination of claimant i.e. Ex. WW1/M1 to Ex. WW1/M5.
M2W1 was also cross examined by Sh. [ENTITY], AR for the workman.
13. The management has also examined Sh. [ENTITY] whose examination and chief examination is as under:-
"I am the handwriting and fingerprint expert and practicing since 1990. I have passed certificate course of finer print examination and had practice practical training from Indian Institute of Criminology, Nagpur, in 1989. Certificate course from the School of Scientific Detective Kanpur in 1992 and weekend first level certificate course in questioned documents examination (forensic science) from Amity Institute of Behavioral Health and Allied Sciences, New Delhi (now Amity University, Noida) in 2004. Apart from that I also obtained practical training for about 5 years from the renewed experts of the field in all aspects of handwriting and finger print examination. I have also made a special study in science of handwriting and fingerprint examination and comparison. My report is Ex.MW-2/1 (colly) (running into 10 pages alongwith photographs). The CD of photographs of negatives is Ex.MW-2/2 (Photographs were taken from the Court record). As per my report, I opined that four disputed signatures Mark as D1 and D4 has been signed by the same person (claimant) who has signed one admitted signature marked as A, taken by me from the Court record file. XXXX by Sh. [ENTITY], ARW.
[CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. I have not filed my diploma/degree regarding my qualification, however, I have brought the same. At this stage, original certificates is shown and photocopy of same have already been placed in connected [CASE NUMBER]. I am practicing as handwriting finger print expert since 1990. I have given my report in approximately 1500 cases till date. I have not given any report against the party who engaged me. It is wrong to suggest that I did not obtain any degree or diploma as stated by me above. The signatures of [ENTITY] as mentioned in document D1 were put from left to right. It is wrong to suggest that I have prepared false report."
14. I have heard the Authorized Representative of the [ENTITY] and the AR of the Management. I have perused the records available on court file. My findings on the issues are as under:-
15. ISSUE NO.1 - WHETHER THEIR EXISTS RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE BETWEEN WORKMAN AND THE MANAGEMENTS NO. 1 & 3 ?
OPW It is a settled principle of law that a person who sets up a plea, burden to prove that plea would be upon him. In the case [PRECEDENT] the Kerala High Court held:
"The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer-employee relationship. An adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. books of accounts they would have proved employer- employee relationship."
Again, in the case of [PRECEDENT] it has been held:
"Where a person asserts that he was a workmen of the company, and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the Company to prove that he was not an employee of the company but of some other person."
The Honble Supreme Court in '[PRECEDENT] held as under:-
"47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide citation [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]. vide which it has been held:
"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 [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. pronouncement in III (2001) SLT 561: (2001) 9 SCC 713 (715), [PRECEDENT], Nilgiri Coop.
Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu; 2001 LLR 148, [PRECEDENT]; 1996 Lab. I.C. 202, [PRECEDENT]; and [PRECEDENT], [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."
It was further held in the judgment titled [PRECEDENT], in which it was interalia held that:
"engagement and appointment of the workman in service can be established either by direct evidence like existence and production of appointment letter or written agreement, or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records, in nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave record, deposit of PF contribution, ESI etc. or even by examination of co-workers and this onus can be discharged by evidence of the co-worker who may depose before the Court that the workman was working with the management."
In the present case only the management No.2 i.e. M/s Lee [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. Apparels has admitted the employer-employee relationship with the work-lady herein who had resigned from her job and the same was duly accepted by the management No.2. The terminal dues were duly paid claimant work-lady amounting to Rs.27,140/- vide cheque no. 979971 dated 25.07.2011 drawn at the State Bank of India, Mayapuri New Delhi.
The work-lady herein has not shown any document regarding the Management No.1 (M/s [ENTITY]) thus it cannot be said that there existed any employer-employee relationship of the work-lady herein with the said management no.1 (M/s [ENTITY]). It has been admitted by the work-lady:
"I have filed this case against [ENTITY]. I have also filed against Lee Apparel and against one more firm but I do not remember the name of firm. I do not have any document to show I was working with Trend Setter. Vol. I have a document with respect to working with Lee Apparel. It is correct that I do not have any document with respect to working with [ENTITY] as I have never worked with the [ENTITY]. "
The work-lady herein has not been able to sufficiently show that she had a definite relationship with the management no.1 (M-
1) and the management no.3 (M-3). It is thus clear that the work- lady has impleaded the management no.1 the management no.3 (M/s Trend Setter) without just cause.
[CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. There is an employer-employee relationship between the work-lady herein and the management no.2 (M/s Lee Apparel) only. Hence ISSUE NO.1 is decided in favour of Management number 1 & 3.
16. ISSUE NO.2 : WHETHER THE WROK-LADY HEREIN HAD RECEIVED FULL AND FINAL DUES IN SETTLMENT OF HER ENTIRE CLIAM FROM THE MANAGEMENT NO. 2 ? OPM The perusal of the document Ex. WW1/M3 reveals that the work-lady [ENTITY] r/o C-70 Gali No.4 Jai Vihar New Delhi working with Le apparel, Plot No.-11 Sector-7, IMT Manesar Gurgaon (HR) had received full and final settlement of Rs.27140/- from the said Management M-2 herein. Furthermore the perusal of the document Ex.WW1/M1 reveals that the work-lady herein had resigned (in her own handwritten letter) expressing her inability to work with the said management no.2 due to financial reasons and asking for full and final settlement thereof. The resignation was accepted by the management M-2 herein vide Ex. WW1/M2. The cheque for the amount of Rs.24,838/- dated 25.07.2011 drawn on the State Bank of India Branch Mayapuri Delhi is Ex. WW1/M4. The Ex. WW1/M5 is the full and final voucher with T No. MY0033 dated 30/06/2011 (reason of leaving Resignation) clearly shows that the work-lady-herein had left due to resignation and had received her full and final settlement amount.
[CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. The work-lady herein had denied some of her signatures / thumb impressions while admitting some. In "[PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held :
"the primary burden to prove the fact that thumb impressions/signatures of the employees were obtained by the petitioner on blank papers and such papers were later on used as resignation letters always remains upon the employees at whose instance the reference was made. It is only after such evidence is adduced the petitioner is called upon to prove that the employees had voluntarily resigned."
In order to prove that the work-lady herein had received her full and final dues the management No.2 has relied upon the expert opinion of an Sh. [ENTITY] who was examined as witness MW-2 and whose opinion report has been placed on record as Ex. MW2/1 in which the expert observes as under :
"After the examination and comparison, I have observed that striking similarities in various common words and letters within the signature, which proves that all the signatures have been signed by the one and the same person.
It has been found that the spacing between the letters, size and proportion of letters, slant, alignment, movement, speed, skill and coordination of writing muscles are similar in all signatures. There are sufficient natural variations among all the [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. disputed and admitted signatures marked as above."
-The expert opinion report Ex. MW2/1 gave opinion:
"OPINION:
On the cumulative effect of all the above reasons and observations taken together, I am of the opinion that the four disputed signatures, marked as D1 to D4 has been signed by the same person who has signed 1 admitted signature marked as A. [ENTITY] QUESTIONED DOCUMENT EXAMINER B2-002 KRISHNA APRA GARDENS, VAIBHAV JHAND, INDRAPURAM, Ghaziabad MOB No 9811109895 DATED: 22/05/2018 ENCL: 5Photo enlargements with CD."
The documents relating to the qualifications of the expert Sh. [ENTITY] have already been placed in connected [CASE NUMBER] on record as Ex. MW-1/A, Ex. MW-2/B, Ex. MW-2/C, MW-2/D , MW-2/E and MW-2/F. The witness MW-2 (Mr. [ENTITY]) was cross-examined by the counsel of the work-lady who primarily put questions on the educational qualifications of the said expert MW-2. However, the testimony of the witness MW2 stood unshaken.
The version of the management No.2 herein cannot be doubted as the evidence produced by the said management M-2 proves it that the full and final settlement was indeed signed by the work-lady herein. The work-lady has not been able to show [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. that the amount received by her were for any overtime dues. The onus to prove the ISSUE No.2 was upon the management no.2 i.e. M/s Le apparel and the said management no.2 has been able to discharge its onus through cogent evidence. Thus the ISSUE No.2 is decided in favour of the management No.2 and against the work-lady herein.
17. ISSUE NO.3: WHETHER THE MANAGEMENT NO.2 HAS SINCE BEEN CLOSED? OPM2 In order to discharge the onus of the closure of the M-2 the said management has placed on record the letter dated 25/09/2012 wherein the Labour welfare Commissioner Haryana is being informed that the management no.2 i.e. [ENTITY] wanted to close its factory on permanent basis.
The witness MW-2 (Sh. [ENTITY]) has admitted in his cross-examination:
"It is correct that before closing the management, management had sent letter to the labour department. I cannot tell whether permission regarding closure of the factory had been granted or not. The management initiated the concerned department regarding closure of factory at Chandigarh on 25.9.11 and has already been marked as Mark A and is now Exhibited as Ex. M2W1/W1.
[CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. Presently, no one is working at Manesar in M/s. Le Apparel as it was closed."
The Relevant provision i.e. [SECTION] [ACT] is being reproduced hereunder: "Compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertaking:
(1) Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of [SECTION], as if the workman had been retrenched:
Provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of [SECTION], shall not exceed his average pay for three months.
As regards compliance of [SECTION] which provides for 60 days' notice to be given of intention of close down any undertaking, However, it makes an exception by the proviso that this requirement shall not apply to an undertaking (1) in which less than 50 workmen are employed (2) less than 50 workmen were employed on an average per working day in the preceding [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. twelve months.
The provision relating to the closure of management is intricately connected to the aspect of compensation to the workman. In this case it has been proved by way of cogent evidence that the work-lady herein had received her dues under full and final settlement, there is no need to go further in the issue of the closure of the management. Even otherwise, it apparently appears that the management No.2 had adequately informed the government about the closure of the management No.2 and there does not appear to be any mala fide behind the closure. It has nowhere been the case of the work-lady herein that the management No.2 (M/s Lee Apparel) had malafidely closed its management but had been still running in some other name etc. The provisions regarding the closure of management is merely a financial safeguard in the interest of the workman. In the present case the management No.2 (M/s Lee Apparel) has taken due care of the said aspect by paying the entire dues under full and final settlement. Moreover, the work-lady herein has duly admitted "It is correct that M/s Lee Apparel was closed w.e.f. 30.06.11. It is correct that I have never worked with management i.e. Lee Apparel after 28.06.11."
The provision relating to the closure of management is intricately connected to the aspect of compensation to the workman. In this case it has been proved by way of cogent evidence that the work-lady herein had received her dues under full and final settlement, there is no need to go further in the issue [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. of the closure of the management. Even otherwise, it apparently appears that the management No.2 had adequately informed the government about the closure of the management No.2 and there does not appear to be any mala fide behind the closure. It has nowhere been the case of the work-lady herein that the management No.2 (M/s Lee Apparel) had malafidely closed its management but had been still running in some other name etc. The provisions regarding the closure of management is merely a financial safeguard in the interest of the workman. In the present case the management No.2 (M/s Lee Apparel) has taken due care of the said aspect by paying the entire dues under full and final settlement.
There is another way of looking at it. In the present case, it is not the plea of the workman that management was employing 50 or more workmen at any given time. The claim is silent in this aspect. Not even the letter by the management no.2 to the Labour Department mentions the number of employees. Compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] would have become necessary only if it was established by the workman that management had employed 50 or more workmen at an average per working day in the preceding 12 months. Far from being established, this fact has not been even pleaded by the workman and as such the compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] would not necessary for the management no. 1. As regards provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] is concerned, payment of compensation and payment of wages for the notice period have not been made conditions precedent to retrenchment on closure under [SECTION].
[CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. However, the liability of the employer to make payments remains, which may be enforced; held in - [PRECEDENT]. On the same ground as above, the provision of [SECTION] particularly [SECTION] which lays down the procedure for closing down an undertaking shall not be applicable to management no. 2. Since the provisions of [SECTION] would only apply only to an establishment having not less than 100 workmen employed on an average per working day in the preceding 12 months.
As such, it is held that termination of the workman is not rendered invalid merely because compensation upon closure has not been paid to him although some liability of the management no. 1 remains towards the workman. This Issue is also decided in favour of the management no. 2 and against the workman. Regarding the justifiability behind the termination of service of workman, it has been held that Industrial Tribunal has no power to enquire into the motive of closure in order to find out whether the closure is justified or not. It can only consider the question of bonafide and nothing more as in [PRECEDENT]). In the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that the closure was with malafide intentions particularly when it stands proved that the work-lady herein had already received her entire dues under full and final settlement.
In the light of the Issue No.2 being decided in favour of the [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. management no.2 and against the work-lady herein, the present Issue No.3 also stands decided in favour of the management no.2 and against the work-lady herein.
18. ISSUE NO.4 - WHETHER THE SERVICES OF THE WROKMAN WAS ILLAGALLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY TERMINATED IF YES THEN BY WHICH OF THE MANAGEMENT ? OPW After considering all the evidence on record and in view of the Issues No.2 & 3 being decided in favour of the management NO.2 it is to be held that the work-lady herein had resigned after receiving her dues under full & final settlement. Thus the ISSUE No.4 is also decided in favour of the management no.2 and against the work-lady herein.
19. RELIF : No relief made out in favour of the work-lady herein against any of the management No. M-1, M-2 or M-3. No directions. Reference answered and Disposed of accordingly. Requisite number of copies of the Award be sent to the competent authority for necessary compliance. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:30-05-2019 ( [ENTITY] ) Digitally Presiding Officer Labour Court signed by [ENTITY] RANI Date: 2019.05.31 15:01:32 +0530 Judge Code : DL0271
[CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. IN THE COURT OF Ms. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS:
NEW DELHI [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc. 30-05-2019 Present : [ENTITY] along with ARW Ms. [ENTITY]
proxy.
Sh. [ENTITY], counsel for management.
An award is passed separately in favour of the managements and against the work-lady. Requisite number of copies of the Award be sent to the competent authority for necessary compliance. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:30-05-2019 ( [ENTITY] ) Presiding Officer Labour Court Rouse Avenue Courts,New Delhi Judge Code : DL0271 [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] etc.