INTHECOURTOFSHRIUMEDSINGHGREWAL PO:LCXVII,ROOMNO.22:KKDCOURTS:DELHI LIRNo.2288/16(OldNo.ID69/12). UniqueIDNo.02402C0252552012. Sh.[ENTITY] S/oLateSh.LaxmanMishra C/oPragatiSheelMazdoorSangh,I161,Karampura, NewDelhi110015. [ENTITY] Versus M/s.[ENTITY], 3381,IIIrdFloor,D.B.GuptaRoad, KarolBagh,NewDelhi110005. Management DATEOFINSTITUTION : 03.09.2012. DATEONWHICHAWARDRESERVED: 01.09.2016. DATEONWHICHAWARDPASSED : 03.09.2016. AWARD: 1. Vide Order No. F.24(67)/12/Lab./CD/573 dated 30.08.12,issuedbyGovernmentofNCTofDelhi,areferencewas senttothisCourtwiththefollowingterms: "Whether the services of Sh. [ENTITY] S/oLateSh.LaxmanMishrahavebeenterminated illegallyand/orunjustifiablybythemanagement; if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directionsarenecessaryinthisrespect?" [CASE NUMBER]. 1/13 2. Claimant'scaseisthathehadjoinedacompanyM/s. WorldLinkTravelsat3381,ChristianColony,D.B.GuptaRoad, KarolBagh,NewDelhion12.06.1995asAccountsAssistantatthe last drawn salary of Rs.6,500/ per month. Thereafter, the management changed its name several times but he continued working with it. The management was not providing him legal facilitieslikeattendanceregister,minimumwages,overtime,leave facility and annual increment etc. for which he was making oral demandssincelong.Ultimately,heservicewasterminatedillegally on23.11.11againstwhichhesenta demandnoticedated12.03.12 whichwentunreplied.Heisunemployedsincetermination. 3. Written statement is to the effect that claimant was employedasPeonbyM/s.WorldLinkTravelsin2005andworked till 2008. The said company was closed in the year 2008 permanently. ThemanagementcameintheshoesofM/s.World LinkTravelson17.07.2009withitsproprietorMs.[ENTITY] ManagerSh.[ENTITY].Itneveremployedclaimant.So,there wasnorelationshipofemployerandemployeewithitandclaimant. 4. Followingissueswereframedon28.01.2014: 1. Whether there was relationship of employer and employeebetweentheparties?OPW [CASE NUMBER]. 2/13 2. Aspertermsofreference. 5. Inordertosubstantiatethecase,theclaimanttendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. WW1/A mentioning all the facts stated in the statement of claim. He relied upon following documents: 1.Ex.WW1/1isdemandnoticedt.12.03.12. 2.Ex.WW1/2ispostalreceiptvidewhichdemandnoticewassent. 3.Ex.WW1/3isacknowledgmentcard. 4.Ex.WW1/4isstatementofclaimbeforeConciliationOfficer. 5.Ex.WW1/5islabourinspectorreportdt.28.02.12. 6. Ex.WW1/6 is copy of identity card of the claimant issued by management(OSR). 7.Ex.WW1/7isappointmentletteroftheclaimant. 8. Mark W1 is copy of renewal premium by cheque receipt dt. 02.01.04. 6. Theclaimantwasexaminedinchiefon29.07.16andhe had tendered his affidavit in evidence which he had filed on 09.07.14. Themanagementwascontinuouslynotappearingsince 24.12.14 and hence it was proceeded exparte on 29.07.16. So, WW1wentuncrossexamined. Thereisnoevidenceonbehalfof management. [CASE NUMBER]. 3/13 7. Ld. ARW argued that the claimant had joined M/s. WorldLinkTravelsasAccountsAssistantatthelastdrawnsalaryof Rs.6,500/ per month. Thereafter, the management changed its nameseveraltimesbuthecontinuedtoworkwithit.Itisownedby Mr.[ENTITY]. 8. ThereisanidentitycardEx.WW1/6onwhichnameof M/s.WorldLinkTravelsismentionedinboldletters. Nameand designation of the claimant is mentioned as [ENTITY] - Accountant. The identity card was valid upto September, 2010. M/s. World Link Travels had issued him appointment letter Ex. WW1/7inwhichdateofappointmentismentionedas12.06.1995 andnameofhispostismentionedasAccountsAssistant.Thatletter hasbeensignedbyitsauthorizedsignatorywhosenameislegibleas [ENTITY].Itisthecaseofthemanagementalsoinwrittenstatementthat claimantwasemployeeofM/s.WorldLinkTravels.So,bothparties are unanimous that claimant was employed by M/s. World Link Travels. 9. CaseofthemanagementisthatM/s.WorldLinkTravels was permanently closed in 2008 and service of the claimant was terminatedinthesameyear. Thepresentmanagementcameinthe shoesofM/s.WorldLinkTravelson17.07.2009andthereafterit [CASE NUMBER]. 4/13 never appointed the claimant. It is further mentioned that its proprietorisMs.[ENTITY]ManagerisSh.[ENTITY]. The management did not place on record any document in what capacityithadcomeintotheshoesofM/s.WorldLinkTravels.It didnotplaceonrecordanydocumentabouttheownershipofM/s. WorldLinkTravels.Itdidnotfileanydocumenttoprovewhether M/s.WorldLinkTravelshadmerelychangeditsnametopresent managementoritwassoldtothepresentmanagement. Itdidnot placeonrecordanydocumenttoprovewhowastheproprietorand managerofthepresentmanagement.Allthesedocumentsareinthe custodyofthemanagementbecausethosepertaintoit.Ontheother hand,identitycardEx.WW1/6provesthatclaimantwasworkingas Accountant withM/s.WorldLinkTravelsandvalidityofidentity cardwasuptoSeptember,2010.Hehadtakenlifeinsurancepolicy fromAllianzBajajLifeInsuranceCompanyLimitedontheaddress ofthemanagement. The appointmentletterEx.WW1/7hasbeen signedbyauthorizedsignatoryof M/s.WorldLinkTravelswhose name is [ENTITY]. It is pertinent to mention that it is mentioned in writtenstatementthatMs.[ENTITY]istheproprietorofthemanagement. Thesaid[ENTITY]hasbeendescribedasproprietor/authorizedsignatory in appointment letter Ex. WW1/7. It means that the present managementisalsoownedbysameproprietori.e.Ms.[ENTITY]. M/s. WorldLinkTravelswasdoingbusinessatpremisesNo.3381,3rd [CASE NUMBER]. 5/13 floor,ChristianColony,D.B.GuptaRoad,NewDelhiasreflectedin identitycardEx.WW1/6andappointmentletterEx.WW1/7.Asper Labour Inspector Ex. WW1/5 dated 28.02.12, the present management is also functioning at premises No. 3381, 3rd floor, ChristianColony,D.B.GuptaRoad,NewDelhi. Themanagement didnotproduceservicerecordoftheclaimantbeforehimandthatis why he recommended prosecution of management for non productionoftherecordsundertheMinimumWagesAct,1948.So, the LabourInspectorreportalsoprovesthataddressofthepresent managementisthesamewhichwastheaddressofM/s.WorldLink Travels. So, it has been established that erstwhile and present managementswere/aredoingbusinessinthesamepremises.Both were/areownedbysameproprietornamely,Ms.[ENTITY].In thisway,theclaimanthassuccessfullyestablishedthelinkbetween M/s.WorldLinkTravelsandpresentmanagement. 10. In view of above discussion, this issue is decided in favouroftheclaimantandagainstthemanagement. IssueNo.2. 11. Claimant'sconsistentstandinaffidavitinevidenceEx. WW1/A and statement of claim is that his service was illegally [CASE NUMBER]. 6/13 terminated on 23.06.11 when he demanded legal facilities like attendance register, minimum wages, overtime, leave facility and annualincrementetc.Nonoticewasgiventohimbeforeterminating hisservices. Noticepayandretrenchmentcompensationwerealso nottendered. Ontheotherhand,defenceofthemanagementwas thattheclaimantwasneveremployedbyit. Themanagementhas failedtoprovethatdefence.Itisnotthecaseofthemanagementthat any demand notice was given to the claimant or notice pay or retrenchmentcompensationweretenderedtohimbeforeterminating hisservice.Terminationofserviceofclaimantbythemanagement inthatmatterwastotallyinviolationofSection25FoftheI.D.Act, 1947.Thisissueisdecidedinfavouroftheclaimantandagainstthe management. Relief. 12. Even if, service of a workman has been terminated illegally, that would not automatically lead to reinstatement with 100%backwages.[PRECEDENT] Hon'bleDelhiHighCourt dealt with the question of reinstatement and back wages and observedinparagraphs27and28asunder: "27. We find from the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the 1970s and 1980sthatreinstatementwithbackwageswas [CASE NUMBER]. 7/13 thenormincaseswheretheterminationofthe servicesoftheworkmanwasheldinoperative. Thedecisionsrenderedinthe1990s,including thedecisionoftheConstitutionBenchinthe Punjab Land Development and Reclamation CorporationLtd.,Chandigarhseemtosuggest thatcompensationinlieuofreinstatementand back wages is now the norm. In any case, sinceweareboundtofollowthedecisionof the Constitution Bench, we, therefore, conclude that reinstatement is not the inevitableconsequenceofquashinganorder oftermination;compensationcanbeawarded inlieuofreinstatementandbackwages. 28. Considering the facts of this case, we arepersuadedtoawardcompensationinlieu of reinstatement and back wages to the workman" 13. In [PRECEDENT]In paragraph16,itwasobservedasunder: "Apartfromtheaforementionederroroflaw, inourconsideredopinion,theLabourCourt andconsequentlytheHighCourtcompletely misdirectedthemselvesinsofarastheyfailed to take into consideration that relief to be grantedintermsofsection11AofthesaidAct beingdiscretionaryinnature,aLabourCourt [CASE NUMBER]. 8/13 was required to consider the facts of each casetherefor. Onlybecausereliefbywayof reinstatementwithfullbackwageswouldbe lawful,itwouldnotmeanthatthesamewould begrantedautomatically". 14. InVinodKumar&othersvsSalwanPublicSchool& others WP(c)5820/2011 dt.17.11.2014 Hon,ble Justice [ENTITY]: 11.Havingconsideredtherivalsubmissionsof thecounselsfortheparties,Idonotfindany infirmityintheorderoftheLabourCourt.Itis a settled position of law that even if termination has been held to be illegal, reinstatementwithfullbackwagesisnottobe granted automatically. The Labour Court is withinitsrighttomouldthereliefbygranting alumpsumcompensation.Infact,Inotethat the Labour Court has relied upon three judgments propounding the law that the LabourCourtcanmouldareliefbygranting lumpsumcompensation;theLabourCourtis entitledtograntreliefhavingregardtofacts andcircumstancesofeachcase. 12. Further, the Supreme Court in the followingjudgmentsheldasunder: (a) In the matter reported as [PRECEDENT]: "However,evenassumingthattherehadbeen aviolationofSections25Gand25Hofthe Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, wouldnotmeanthattheLabourCourtshould [CASE NUMBER]. 9/13 have passed anaward ofreinstatement with entirebackwages.ThisCourttimeandagain has held that the jurisdiction under [SECTION] must be exercised judiciously. The workmanmustbeemployedbyStatewithinthe meaningofArticle12of theConstitutionof India,havingregardtothedoctrineofpublic employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. The respondent had not regularly served the
appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, whenhisserviceswereterminatedanyperson whowasjuniortohiminthesamecategory, had been retained. His services were dispensedwithasearlyasin1987.Itwould notbepropertodirecthisreinstatementwith backwages.We,therefore,areoftheopinion thatinterestofjusticewouldbesubservedif instead and in place of reinstatement of his services,asumofRs75,000isawardedtothe respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments."
(b) In the matter reported as [PRECEDENT]
"23. Noncompliance with the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT],although,mayleadtothegrantofarelief of reinstatement with full back wages 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 Theappellanthereinhasclearlystated thattheappointmentsoftherespondentshave beenmadeinviolationoftheprovisionsofthe Adhiniyam.Anappointmentmadeinviolation oftheprovisionsoftheAdhiniyamisvoid.The same,however,althoughwouldnotmeanthat theprovisionsoftheIndustrialDisputesAct arenotrequiredtobetakenintoconsideration for the purpose of determination of the question as to whether the termination of workmenfromservicesislegalornotbutthe sameshouldhavetobeconsideredtobean important factor in the matter of grant of relief.TheMunicipalCorporationdealswith public money. Appointments of the respondents were made for carrying out the work of assessment. Such assessments are doneperiodically.Theirservices,thus,should nothavebeendirectedtobecontinueddespite therequirementsthereforhavingcometoan end.It,therefore,inourconsideredview,is not a case where the relief of reinstatement shouldhavebeengranted."
([ENTITY]. [PRECEDENT], the court has stated:
"8. Grant of a relief of reinstatement, it is trite,isnotautomatic.Grantofbackwagesis also not automatic. The Industrial Courts while exercising their power under [SECTION] requiredtostrikeabalanceinasituationof this nature. For the said purpose, certain relevant factors, as for example, nature of service,themodeandmannerofrecruitment viz.whethertheappointmenthadbeenmade inaccordancewiththestatutoryrulessofar asapublicsectorundertakingisconcerned, etc.,shouldbetakenintoconsideration."
(d)Inthematterreportedas [ENTITY]. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009)15SCC327,thecourthasstated:
"[ENTITY] articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employeewasfoundtobeillegal,thereliefof reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, therehasbeenashiftinthelegalpositionand in a long line of cases, this Court has consistentlytakentheviewthatreliefbyway of reinstatement with back wages is not automaticandmaybewhollyinappropriatein a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contraventionoftheprescribedprocedure
14.Anorderofretrenchmentpassedinviolationof [SECTION] shouldnot,however,beautomaticallypassed.Theawardof reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workmanhascompleted240daysofworkinayearpreceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensationhasbeenawarded.ThisCourthasdistinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanentemployee."
15. TheclaimantwasworkingasAccountsAssistantwith themanagement. Therearevariousshops,agencies,hospitalsand tradinghouseswhichareinthedireneedofaccountants. Hehad gained experience of about 16 years while working with the management. Hadhetriedseriously,hewouldhavedefinitelygot jobofsamestatusandsalary.Hisdepositionisgeneralandvaguein nature. His last drawn salary was Rs.6,500/ per month. He had workedwiththemanagementfrom12.06.1995to23.06.11i.e.about 16 years. Taking into account all these facts, a lumpsum compensationofRs.4,00,000/(RupeesFourLacsOnly)isgranted tohim.Themanagementisdirectedtopaythesaidamounttohim withinonemonthfromthedateofpublicationoftheaward,failing whichitshallbeliabletopayinterestonit@9%per annumfrom todaytillitsrealization.Partiestobeartheirowncosts.Referenceis answeredaccordingly.Awardispassedaccordingly.
16. Therequisitenumberofcopiesoftheawardbesentto theGovt.ofNCTofDelhiforitspublication.Filebeconsignedto RecordRoom.
DictatedtotheSteno&announced(UMEDSINGHGREWAL) intheopenCourton03.09.2016.POLCXVII/KKD,DELHI.