INTHECOURTOFSHRIUMEDSINGHGREWAL PO:LCXVII[CASE NUMBER]ROOMNO.22:KKDCOURTS:DELHI [CASE NUMBER](OldNo.ID104/10/08). UniqueIDNo.02402C0412202008. Inthematterof: Sh.[ENTITY] S/oSh.SunderMahato R/o7/141[CASE NUMBER]FirstFloor[CASE NUMBER]DakshinPuri[CASE NUMBER]NewDelhi. Workman Versus TravelCorporation(India)Ltd. C35[CASE NUMBER]ConnaughtPlace[CASE NUMBER]NewDelhi110001. Management DATEOFINSTITUTION : 02.06.2008. DATEONWHICHAWARDRESERVED: 03.08.2016. DATEONWHICHAWARDPASSED : 07.10.2016. AWARD: 1. Thisisadirectindustrialdisputefiledbytheworkman undertheIndustrialDisputesAct[CASE NUMBER]1947(hereinafterreferredas"the Act")forreinstatementwithcontinuityofserviceandbackwages. 2. Claimant's case is that management is a company incorporated under the provisions of [ACT] in the year1961asaPrivateLimitedCompany.Itwaslateronconverted intoalimitedcompany. Ithas25officesinIndiaand11offices [CASE NUMBER]. 1/43 abroadhavingstrengthofabout2000employees.Hewasemployed withiton01.04.1999asaDriver. Hewasapermanentemployee andasperthetermsandconditionsofservice[CASE NUMBER]hewastoretireatthe ageof55years.Atthetimeofillegaltermination[CASE NUMBER]hewasworking asDriverinTransport/RailwayDepartment.Hewasamemberof TravelCorporationIndiaPvt.Ltd.WorkersUnion(Regd.)[CASE NUMBER]Delhiand hisserviceconditionwasgovernedbyIndustrialDisputesActand otherlabourlaws/actsaspersettlementarrivedatbetweenUnion andmanagement.InNovember[CASE NUMBER]2006[CASE NUMBER]ThomasCookIndiaLimited[CASE NUMBER] a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of [ACT][CASE NUMBER] purchased 100% equity shares of the managementduetowhichthemanagementbecameawhollyowned subsidiary company of Thomas Cook India Limited. The managementisinvolvedinthebusinessofTravelandTravelrelated serviceswhichincludesbookingofairtickets[CASE NUMBER]Railwaystickets[CASE NUMBER]road tickets[CASE NUMBER]hotels[CASE NUMBER]providingoftransportservice[CASE NUMBER]staffguidesinbound andoutbound[CASE NUMBER]andallotherfacilitiesrelatedtotoursandtravelsto itsdomesticandinternationalcustomers.Themanagementisaprofit makingcompanyandhasbeenpayingaround20%bonuseveryyear toallitsemployees.Ithasbeenregularlyemployingmoreandmore employees in view of the growth of its business. Various departments/divisionsofthemanagementsuchasticketing[CASE NUMBER]railway[CASE NUMBER] traveling[CASE NUMBER] booking account etc. were indispensably interrelated to [CASE NUMBER]. 2/43 eachotherandworkofonedepartmentwasdependentonthework ofotherdepartmentandinthisway[CASE NUMBER]alldepartmentsclubbedtogether workasasingleuniti.e.anIndustrialEstablishment. Noneofthe departmentwasseverableandallthedepartmentsputtogetherwere one integrated unit and part and parcel of the same Industrial Establishment i.e.management. There was acomplete functional integrityamongstdepartmentsandthetermsandconditionsofthe serviceofdifferentdepartmentsthroughoutthecountrywasuniform andtheyweregovernedbythesameservicerules. Therewas no division whatsoever of any nature in the entire Industrial Establishment.Theemployeesofonedepartmentcanbetransferred to another department and division of the company and group company. On 19.04.2005[CASE NUMBER] the management through its Vice President[CASE NUMBER]FinanceandAdministration[CASE NUMBER]enteredintoanundertaking[CASE NUMBER] termsandconditionsofwhichwereeffectivefrom01.06.2004and thesamewasvalidforaperiodofthreeyearsendingMay[CASE NUMBER]2007. Themanagementandunion/employeeswereboundtofollowthe same.ItwassignedbytheChairmanoftheunionSh.[ENTITY] employees. When Thomas Cook India Limited purchased the businessofmanagementinNovember[CASE NUMBER]2006[CASE NUMBER]theentireownership andmanagementofthemanagementwastransferredtoit.[ENTITY] after change of ownership in its favour[CASE NUMBER] the Thomas Cook India [CASE NUMBER]. 3/43 Limited continued entire business in the name of management. Nothingwaschangedbywayofaforesaidbusinessdeal.Therewas nochangeinthetermsandconditionsofserviceoftheemployees. The understanding / agreement dated 19.04.2005 was also not disturbedbybothpartiesandhence[CASE NUMBER]thesettlementremainedinforce. After purchase of 100% shares of the management[CASE NUMBER] the acquirer[CASE NUMBER] Thomas Cook India Limited[CASE NUMBER] assured employees that everything wouldbeverysmoothandnoprejudicewouldbecausedtoanyof them. Itwasassuredbytheacquirerthatitwouldretainoldwork forceasitwouldhelpthecompanytomakebettergrowthandprofits. Ithadsoughtcooperationoftheemployeeswhichwasgiventothem whole heartedly. The relationship between new owner / managementofThomasCookIndiaLimitedandworkmenwasvery normal[CASE NUMBER] cordial[CASE NUMBER] impartial and professional. He was given equal treatmentinitially.However[CASE NUMBER]slowlyandgradually[CASE NUMBER]themanagement[CASE NUMBER] undertheinstruction/instigationofThomasCookIndiaLimited[CASE NUMBER] starteddiscriminatingandshowingunequalapproachtowardshim being a member of the union. The unionized employees were initiallyadvisedtoleavethemembershipof theunionfor better futureinthecompanybutlater[CASE NUMBER]theywerecoerced. Heandother employeeswerethreatenedthatincasetheyfailedtogiveup the membershipoftheunion[CASE NUMBER]theywouldbeterminatedfromservice.It was breach by respondent company that it will not make any
discriminationbetweenunionizedandnounionizedemployees. It discriminated with unionized employees by hiking salary of unionizedemployees40%to60%+2000/p.m.onpreferencebasis. Tocreatedisparityandtodissuadetheunionizedemployeesfromthe bonafidetradeunionactivities[CASE NUMBER]theywereofferedahikeofmeager 20% of their existing pay package. Inadvertently[CASE NUMBER] many of the unionized employees were also given these increments as the management usedtomaintainlistof only20employees asunion members.Duetodiscriminatoryapproach[CASE NUMBER]themembersoftheunion includingtheworkman[CASE NUMBER]raisedtheirvoiceofprotestandmadeabona fidedemandtothemanagementnottotreatthemondiscriminatory note and requested equality of pay at par with nonunionized employees.Themanagement[CASE NUMBER]withulteriormotivetodoawaywith trade union[CASE NUMBER] refused to give equal treatment at par with other employees. Faced with such situation[CASE NUMBER] in order to protect their interest[CASE NUMBER]theunionizedemployeesapproachedtheLabourDepartment and filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Theworkmanthroughtheunionraisedacharterofdemanddated 25.02.2007inrelationtospecialincrement.TheConciliationOfficer admitted the demands of the Union of special increments for qualifications[CASE NUMBER]experience[CASE NUMBER]stagnationincrement[CASE NUMBER]definitionofbasic pay[CASE NUMBER] dearness allowance[CASE NUMBER] provident fund[CASE NUMBER] gratuity[CASE NUMBER] medical aid[CASE NUMBER] dispensary[CASE NUMBER]LTA[CASE NUMBER]citycompensatoryallowance[CASE NUMBER]houserent[CASE NUMBER]hoursof work[CASE NUMBER] weekly offs[CASE NUMBER] leave fare concession[CASE NUMBER] holidays[CASE NUMBER] leave rules[CASE NUMBER] attendance / late comings[CASE NUMBER] retirement age[CASE NUMBER] uniforms and liveries[CASE NUMBER] special allowance / pay for executive to Sr. Executive and managementexecutive[CASE NUMBER]supervisor/teamleader[CASE NUMBER]specialpay/special allowance[CASE NUMBER] bonus / exgratia[CASE NUMBER] performance incentive[CASE NUMBER] promotion policy[CASE NUMBER]haltingallowance[CASE NUMBER]contractlabour[CASE NUMBER]freeticket-domestic/ international[CASE NUMBER] cash handling / carrying allowance to peon / messenger[CASE NUMBER]conveyance&Transportallowance[CASE NUMBER]overtime[CASE NUMBER]mobile/ cellular phone[CASE NUMBER] lunch allowance[CASE NUMBER] meals and inconvenience allowance. On 13.12.07[CASE NUMBER] the parties arrived at a settlement and signed settlement deed before the Conciliation Officer under the provisionsofSection12(3)readwithSection18(3)oftheAct.The preliminaryhearingwasheldbytheAssistantLabourCommissioner through [ENTITY] on 27.11.07 and on being satisfied that the union had sanctioned locus standi to represent the workman[CASE NUMBER] a memorandumofsettlementwasenteredintobetweentheworkmen representedbytheunionandthemanagementon03.01.2008[CASE NUMBER]which was witnessed by Ms. [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] the Associate Vice President[CASE NUMBER]HumanResourcesofThomasCookIndiaLtd.Company andalsobythePresidentandSecretaryoftheunion. Onlyafter enteringintothesettlement[CASE NUMBER]thesalaryofunionizedemployeeswas madeatparwithnonunionizedemployeesbyhikingsalaryby70%.
Thesettlementcameintoforcefrom1 stMay[CASE NUMBER]2007andit hadtoremaininoperationtill30.04.2010anditcouldbeterminated bygivingtwomonthsnoticeinwritingbyeitherpartyinaccordance withtheprovisionsoflawapplicableattherelevanttime.Whenthe acquisition took place[CASE NUMBER] the officials of the company started pressurizingtheemployeesincludingtheworkmantoresignandto take job on contract basis failing which their service would be terminated. When the workman and other employees were pressurizedand threatened repeatedlyof terminationof job[CASE NUMBER]they were left with no alternative but to knock at the door of labour department. Accordingly[CASE NUMBER]theymadeacomplaintdated25.04.2008 inthis regardbeforeAssistantLabour Commissioner[CASE NUMBER]K.G.Marg[CASE NUMBER] NewDelhi and notice was issued to management for appearance. During the pendency of aforesaid complaint before ALC[CASE NUMBER] on 29.04.2008 at around 5p.m[CASE NUMBER]hewas called by Ms. [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]claimingtobetheauthorizedsignatoryofThomasCook IndiaLimited. Shehandedoverhimaletterofterminationdated 29.04.2008[CASE NUMBER]videwhichhisservicestoodterminated.Ms.[ENTITY] she was in the employment of Thomas Cook India Limited[CASE NUMBER] the holdingcompany. Hesenta demandnoticetothemanagementon 05.05.2008forreinstatementbuthewasrefusedvideitsreplydated 07.05.2008 sent by Ms. [ENTITY] on behalf of management. Thesubmissionofcompanyinletteroftermination dated 29.04.2008 that transport / railway division was no longer economicallyviablewasfactuallyincorrect.Itwaswronglystated inletterthatthesaiddivisionhasbeenclosedw.e.f.29.04.2008.The fact is that management has outsourced the entire work to the contractorsbydismissingpermanentemployees. Themanagement failedtosatisfytherequirementof[ACT] No noticeofintentionofclosureoftherailwayandtraveldepartment wasgiventoanyoftheemployees.
3. Written statement is to the effect that termination of service of workman was due to closure of Transport / Railway Divisions/Departments. Hewasworkingwithmanagementasa DriverinTransportDepartment.
The management is primarily and predominantly engagedinthebusinessoftravelrelatedservicetoitsclientssuchas LeisureHolidays[CASE NUMBER]OutboundHolidays[CASE NUMBER]InboundHolidays[CASE NUMBER]corporate booking and ticketing services like Visas[CASE NUMBER] Passports etc. The claimantwasworkinginTransport/RailwayDepartmentwhichdid notformpartofcoreactivitiesofthemanagement. TheRailway Departmentusedtocatertocorporaterailwaybookingrequirements and there was no significant business from other sources. The RailwayandTransportDepartmentsweremakinghugelossesand were[CASE NUMBER]thus[CASE NUMBER]noteconomicallyviable.Duetothatreason[CASE NUMBER]thecompany tookapolicydecisiontoclosedownthosedepartments/divisionsall overIndia. Accordingly[CASE NUMBER]theTransportDepartmentsatDelhi[CASE NUMBER]Agra andPatnawereclosedon29.04.2008. TheRailwayDepartments werealsocloseddownatDelhi[CASE NUMBER]Agra[CASE NUMBER]Lucknow[CASE NUMBER]Patna[CASE NUMBER]Ahmadabad[CASE NUMBER] Baroda&Suratandservicesoftheworkerswereterminatedasa resultofclosureofthosedepartmentsinaccordancewithSection25 [ACT] Theserviceoftheclaimantwasalsoterminated videorderdated29.04.2008.Whileterminatinghisservice[CASE NUMBER]hewas informedthattheTransportandRailwayDivisionswerenolonger economicallyviableandassuchhisservicewasbeingterminated w.e.f. 29.04.2008. The management had offered him money equivalenttoonemonthsalaryinlieuofnoticeaswellasclosure compensationattherateof15dayssalaryforeachcompletedyearof servicewithmanagement.Hisotherdueslikegratuityetc.werealso paidtohimwhichweredulyacceptedbyhimbywayofcheque handedovertohimon29.04.2008itself.Inthisway[CASE NUMBER]theclaimant's service was terminated as a result of closure of department after payinghimrequisitecompensationunder[ACT]
TheRailwayandTransportDepartmentswereseparate and independent entities for other departments. There was no functionalintegritybetweenthem. Theveryfactthatthecompany continues to carry on its business even after closure of those departmentsshowsthattherewasnointerdependenceandfunctional integrity.Thosedepartmentsalwaysconstituteseparateentity. All theworkerswereexclusivelyemployedinthosedepartments.Those workersincludingtheclaimantwerenevertransferredtoanyother departmentduringtenureoftheirservice.
Themanagementwashavingcordialrelationswiththe union.Itusedtohelpuniontoresolveallthegrievancesandissues oftheworkersbyenteringintoamicablesettlementwithunion. It had no ill will against union or its members. The claimant's membershipwiththeunionhadnothingtodowithterminationofhis service.On19.04.2005[CASE NUMBER]therewasnosettlementassuchsignedby the Chairman of the Union. It was merely a Memorandum of Understanding which was duly implemented. No member of the union was ever discriminated. The factual position is that the employeeswhoweremembersoftheuniongottheirwagesincreased aspertheMemorandumofUnderstandingoftheyear2004which wasvalidtillMay[CASE NUMBER]2007.AfteracquisitionbyThomasCook(India) Ltd.inDecember[CASE NUMBER]2006[CASE NUMBER]theemployees[CASE NUMBER]whowerenotcoveredunder theMemorandumofUnderstanding[CASE NUMBER]weregivenwagehikeonthe basis of their performance and the persons covered under the MemorandumofUnderstandinggottheirwageincreasedunderthe settlementdated03.01.2008withretrospectiveeffect. Inthisway[CASE NUMBER] themanagementwasnotengagedinanytypeofdiscrimination. It hasbeenadmittedthattheunionhadraisedsomecharterofdemands beforeConciliationOfficerandthatdisputewasresolved.
Themanagementneverthreatenedanyoftheworkman of termination of service if he did not resign from service. No complaintdated25.04.2008waseverfiledbytheworkmeninthe LabourDepartment.Itwasonlyafterclosureofthedepartmentsthat the union managed to get the complaint stamped back dated as 25.04.2008. Thefactisthatthemanagementwasneverissuedany noticebytheLabourDepartmentonthecomplaintdated25.04.2008[CASE NUMBER] norsuchcomplaintwaseverforwardedtothemanagementnorthe conciliationproceedingswereeverinitiatedonthatcomplaint.
Themanagementhadnotengagedanyemployeeupon terminationofserviceofclaimant.Itdidnotoutsourceanyworkand so[CASE NUMBER]performanceofthatworkunderthedirectcontrolandsupervision ofthecompany[CASE NUMBER]doesnotarise.
4. Followingissuewasframedon30.09.2008:
1. Whethertheservicesoftheworkmanwereterminated illegallyandunjustifiably?
5. Inordertosubstantiatethecase[CASE NUMBER]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.WW1/1ismemorandumofsettlementbetweenmanagement andworkers.
2.Ex.WW1/2dated08.05.2008iscomplaintagainstmanagement toAssistantLabourCommissionerthroughunion.
3.Ex.WW1/3iscomplaintdated24.04.2008toAssistantLabour Commissioner.
4.Ex.WW1/4isletterofLabourOfficer/ConciliationOfficerto managementregardingregistrationofmemorandumofsettlement. 5Ex.WW1/5iscertificatedated21.04.2004regardingregistration of union[CASE NUMBER] namely[CASE NUMBER] M/s. Travel Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. WorkersUnion.
6.Ex.WW1/6iscomplaintdated21.07.2004byuniontoSHOPS ConnaughtPlace.
7.Ex.WW1/7dated14.03.2006iscomplaintagainstmanagement byuniontoAssistantLabourCommissioner.
8.Ex.WW1/8isappointmentletterdated01.04.1999.
9.Ex.WW1/9dated01.09.2004iswagerevisionletter.
10.Ex.WW1/10dated01.06.2007isanotherwagerevisionletter.
11.Ex.WW1/11ishissalaryslipforthemonthofMarch[CASE NUMBER]2008.
12.Ex.WW1/12isEPFstatementsofclaimantfortheyear1999- 2000[CASE NUMBER]2001-2002[CASE NUMBER]2000-2001.
13.Ex.WW1/13isEPFstatementsofclaimantfortheyear2003- 2004[CASE NUMBER]2002-2003[CASE NUMBER]2004-2005&2005-2006.
14.Ex.WW1/14ishisESICcard.
15.Ex.WW1/15ishisidentitycard.
16.Ex.WW1/16dated07.08.2008isreplyofthemanagement.
17.Ex.WW1/17dated29.04.2008isterminationletter. 18Ex.WW1/18ischequeofRs.1[CASE NUMBER]21[CASE NUMBER]324/.
19.Ex.WW1/19isexperiencecertificatedated29.04.2008issued toclaimantbymanagement.
20.Ex.WW1/20isletterdated31.07.2008ofmanagement.
21.Ex.WW1/21isnewspapercutting.
22.Ex.WW1/22isnewspapercutting.
23.Ex.WW1/23isnewspapercutting.
6. WW2 Sh. [ENTITY] deposed that Travel Corporation(India)Pvt.Ltd.WorkersUnionwasformedin2004and was registered on 21.04.2004 under [ACT]. Initially[CASE NUMBER]therewereonly20membersbutitsstrengthincreasedto67 later.HewasChairmanoftheunionandclaimantwasitsmember. Thatunionwasthesoleunionrecognizedbythemanagement.The managemententeredintosettlement/agreementwiththatunionon 19.04.2005and03.01.2008. Thetermsandconditionsenteredinto thesettlementarebindingnotonlyupontheworkersbutalsoupon themanagement.Theunionhadsubmittedageneraldemandnotice tothemanagementon21.06.2004andwhenthemanagementdidnot filereplytothenotice[CASE NUMBER]itwasconstrainedtofileaclaimpetition underSection10oftheActbeforeAssistantLabourCommissioner[CASE NUMBER] KasturbaGandhiMargon19.07.2004. Themanagementcalleda meeting of the staff members on 17.07.2004 vide notice dated 16.07.2004regardingwagerevision.Nodiscussionwasheldinthe meetingbutthemanagementstartedputtingpressureonthemembers tosignblanksheetsandduetothatreason[CASE NUMBER]theunionhadfileda complaintinthatregardwiththepoliceon21.07.2004.Afteralotof discussionandnegotiationsheldbetweenthemanagementandunion on the advise of Assistant Labour Commissioner[CASE NUMBER] both parties hammeredoutasettlementeffectiveforthreeyearsfrom01.06.2004 to31.05.2007.Aftersettlement[CASE NUMBER]ajointapplicationwasfiledbefore AssistantLabourCommissionerforrecordingsettlementandclosure ofdispute.
He further deposed that the management is a profit makingcompanyanddespiteit[CASE NUMBER]itsold100%sharesin2006toM/s. ThomasCookIndiaLtd.ataveryhighpremiumofRs.200/crores. Initially[CASE NUMBER]therelationship betweennewmanagementandworkers/ unionwascordial[CASE NUMBER]butslowlyandgradually[CASE NUMBER]themanagement[CASE NUMBER]under theinstructionofholdingcompanyi.e.ThomasCookIndiaLimited[CASE NUMBER] started discriminating members of the union. The unionized employees were initially advised to leave the membership of the unionforbetterfutureinthecompany.[ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] the management started coercing and putting pressure on them. WW2furtherdeposedthattheunion[CASE NUMBER]throughitsexecutivemembers[CASE NUMBER] submittedcharterofdemandstothemanagementon25.02.2007for the next term and requested to initiate discussions[CASE NUMBER] but the management didnotrespond. Inthemeantime[CASE NUMBER]themanagement[CASE NUMBER] with a view to dislodge the union[CASE NUMBER] increased the wages of large numberofemployeesleavingasideallactivemembersoftheunion. Inthisway[CASE NUMBER]themanagementhadshownfavourandpartialitytoone setofworkersregardlessofmerit. Therewasalotofresentment amongstmembersoftheunionduetodiscriminatoryapproachofthe management. They wanted to go on strike. After conciliation proceedings[CASE NUMBER]amemorandumofsettlementwasenteredintobetween theworkersrepresentedbyhimthroughunionasChairmanandthe managementon03.01.2008whichwassignedbySh.[ENTITY] and Ms. [ENTITY] on behalf of management as authorized representatives. The memorandum of settlement was registeredinSettlementRegisteratserialNo.2on16.01.2008.The salaryofunionizedemployeeswasmadeatparwithnonunionized employeesonthestrengthofthesettlementdated03.01.2008.Prior to entering into memorandum of settlement on 03.01.2008[CASE NUMBER] many proposalsputforthbythemanagementwerediscussed.Therewas noproposalbythemanagementtoreducetheworkforceortoclose anydepartment. Duringthewholediscussion[CASE NUMBER]therewasneverany murmur that the management was contemplating to reduce the existingworkforceoritwasintendingtocloseanydepartment.He furtherdeposedthatthemanagementstartedthreateningworkersfor terminationoftheirjob. Theywereleftwithnoalternativethanto knockatthedooroflabourdepartment.Accordinglyacomplaintin thatregardwasmadebeforeAssistantLabourCommissioner[CASE NUMBER]K.G. Marg[CASE NUMBER] New Delhi on 25.04.2008. During the pendency of that complaint[CASE NUMBER]severalworkerswereterminatedbythemanagementon 29.04.2008ataround5p.mbyMs.[ENTITY] herselftobetheauthorizedsignatoryofmanagement.Noemployee wasinexcessinanyofthedepartment.Nodepartmentwasrunning intolosses. Infact[CASE NUMBER]afterremovalofemployees[CASE NUMBER]themanagement outsourcedtheRailwayandTransportDepartmenttoprivatevendors andcontractemployees.
6. The managementexaminedonlyonewitness[CASE NUMBER]namely[CASE NUMBER] Sh. [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] Associate Vice President[CASE NUMBER] Leisure Travel (inbound).
He deposed that claimant was working with the managementasDriverintheTransportDepartment.
He further deposed that the company was engaged primarilyandpredominantlyinthebusinessoftravelrelatedservice toitsclientssuchasLeisureHolidays[CASE NUMBER]OutboundHolidays[CASE NUMBER]Inbound Holidaysetc.TheRailwayandTransportDepartmentsweremaking hugelossesandwere[CASE NUMBER]thus[CASE NUMBER]noteconomicallyviable.Thecompany took a policy decision to close down those departments all over India. Accordingly[CASE NUMBER]theTransportDepartmentsatDelhi[CASE NUMBER]Agraand Patnawereclosedon29.04.2008.TheRailwayDepartmentssituated atDelhi[CASE NUMBER]Agra[CASE NUMBER]Lucknow[CASE NUMBER]Patna[CASE NUMBER]Ahmadabad[CASE NUMBER]Baroda&Suratwere alsocloseddownandservicesoftheemployeesworkinginthose departments were terminated due to closure in accordance with [ACT]
He further deposed that claimant was duly paid one month'ssalaryinlieuofnoticeaswellasclosurecompensationatthe rate of 15 days salary for each completed year of service with managementinaccordancewith[ACT]Alllegal duesincludinggratuityetc.werealsopaidtohim.
MW1 further deposed that the claimant had duly acceptedthe demanddraftofRs.1[CASE NUMBER]21[CASE NUMBER]324.00 towardsnoticepay[CASE NUMBER] closurecompensationandotherduesinfullandfinalsettlement.That demanddraftwashandedovertohimalongwithletteroftermination dated29.04.2008.
MW1 further deposed that after closure of the department[CASE NUMBER]itdidnotengageanyoftheemployeeswhoseservices stood terminated as a result of closure. The closure of the departments was not actuated by any mala fide or extraneous considerations.Themanagementislegallyentitledtoorganize/re organizeitsbusiness.Itwasalsoentitledinlawtoreducethesurplus workforce andtoretrenchtheworkersworkinginexcessnumbers. The management never made any commitment that it would not closedownitsanyofthedepartmentorthatitwouldnotretrenchthe surplus workforce. The profitability of the company has no relevance. Theissueofreductionofworkforceorclosureofany departmentwasneitherraisednordiscussedinthemeetingheldwith theunionandduetothatreasonevennopassingremarkwasmadein thesettlement.Settlementdated03.01.2008isnobaragainstclosure or retrenchment. About the complaint dated 25.04.2008 by the union[CASE NUMBER]hedeposedthatsuchcomplaintwasneverfiledintheLabour Department.Duetothatreason[CASE NUMBER]nodisputebetweentheworkersand themanagementwaspendingwhentheservicesoftheclaimantcame toanend.Ms.MaharukhM.Dosabhaiwasfullycompetenttosign theterminationletterastheBoardofDirectorsofTravelCorporation (India)Limitedhaddulyempoweredhertoissueterminationletter. TheResolutionEx.MW1/1dated01.04.2008provesthatfact.
Henextdeposedthatincaseofinboundcustomerswho come from outside India to visit India[CASE NUMBER] the company offers them services like hotel accommodation[CASE NUMBER] sight seeing facility and local travel. These services are provided based on the customer's individual requirements. The transport department had a fleet of buses[CASE NUMBER] mini coaches and multi utility vehicles for servicing the customersasandwhenrequired. Whentherequirementexceeded the capacity of servicing internally[CASE NUMBER] the management used to hire vehiclesfromvariousserviceproviders. Asmostofthecustomers werefromoutsideIndia[CASE NUMBER]thebus[CASE NUMBER]minicoachesetc.whichweremore than3yearsold[CASE NUMBER]werenotusedforservingastheyusedtodemand brandnewvehicles. Duetothatreason[CASE NUMBER]thevehicleswhichwere morethan3yearsoldbecomeunusableleadingtolossonaccountof obsolescence and higher depreciation. In this background[CASE NUMBER] it was decidedtoclosethetransportdepartmentastheaccumulatedlosses forthelastthreeyearswasveryhighwhichthecompanycouldnot affordtotake. Afterclosingdownofthetransportdepartment[CASE NUMBER]the managementstartedarrangingvehiclesfromserviceproviders.Such service is provided by former drivers of the management whose services were also terminated as a result of closure of transport department. Thosedriversbecameentrepreneurshadstartedtheir own independent business of transportation after purchasing old vehiclesfromthecompany.
AboutRailwayTickets[CASE NUMBER]MW1deposedthatthecompany used to provide tickets to customers on their request. Whenever therewasrequest[CASE NUMBER]theRailwayDepartmentemployeewouldgotothe reservationcounteroftheRailwayStation[CASE NUMBER]wouldstandphysicallyin queueandbookthetickets. TheRailwayDepartmentusedtotake helpofoutsidevendorsforbookingofrailwayticketswheneverit was not able to manage booking on account of high volumes of booking. However[CASE NUMBER]duetoadvancementintechnology[CASE NUMBER]theIndian Railways has opened the website www.irct.co.inn where one can book railway ticket anywhere in India by sitting in front of a computer. Due to that reason[CASE NUMBER] the earlier system of physically bookingrailwayticketsonewasrenderedcommerciallyunviableand redundant. Due to technical advancement[CASE NUMBER] the customers started bookingticketsthemselvesinsteadofaskingthemanagementtodo so.Moreover[CASE NUMBER]railtravelbythecorporatecustomersisverylownow adaysonaccountoflowcostairlines. Incase[CASE NUMBER]alowcostairlines doesnotflytoaparticulardestination[CASE NUMBER]themanagementencourages itscustomerstobookrailticketsthemselvesbyusingIRCTCportal (www.irctc.co.in). Ifanyofthecustomerisunabletobookticket from the site of Indian Railway[CASE NUMBER] the management helps him by bookinghisticketsfromoutsidevendor
7. Ld. ARW argued that service of the claimant was terminatedbymanagementvideletterdated29.04.2008mentioning thereasonasclosureofRailway/TransportDepartments. There wasasettlementbetweenthemanagementandunionon03.01.2008. Atthetimeofenteringintothatsettlement[CASE NUMBER]therewasnowhisperor discussionfromthesideofthemanagementthatitwasgoingtoclose any of its department. In fact[CASE NUMBER] the Railway and Transport Departmentshavenotbeenclosed.Theclaimantandotherworkers havebeendismissedfromservicebecausetheyweremembersofthe union.HefurthersubmittedthataspersettlementEx.WW1/1dated 03.01.2008validupto30.04.2010[CASE NUMBER]themanagementwasdutybound to protect the interest of the workers. There was no clause in settlementdeedregardingclosureofanydepartmentandhencethe managementcannotcloseanyofitsactivity.Moreover[CASE NUMBER]therewasno reasontoclosethedepartmentasthemanagementwasrunningin hugeprofitsinDecember[CASE NUMBER]2007. Henextarguedthat termination lettershavebeensignedbyMs.[ENTITY].Rather[CASE NUMBER]shewasemployeeofM/s.Thomas CookIndiaLtd.andhenceshewasnotcompetenttoterminatethe service of the claimant. The last argument is that even if it is presumedthatthemanagementhascloseddowntheTransportand RailwayDepartments[CASE NUMBER]itshouldhaveabsorbedtheclaimantandother employeeinotherdepartmentsastheirjob[CASE NUMBER]aspersettlementdated 03.01.2008[CASE NUMBER]wastransferable.
Ld.ARMadmittedthattherewasnodiscussionfromthe sideofthemanagementaboutclosurewhileenteringintosettlement with the union on 03.01.2008[CASE NUMBER] but absence of discussion cannot preventthemanagementfromclosinganyofitsdepartment. The RailwayandTransportDepartmentshavebeenclosednotinDelhi butalloverIndia.Earlier[CASE NUMBER]themanagementusedtobookRailTickets ofitscustomersbysendingitsemployeestothebookingcountersof Indian Railways. The employees would physically stand in the queueforbookingtickets.Aftertechnicaladvancement[CASE NUMBER]ticketscan bebookedfromInternetbyoneperson.Moreover[CASE NUMBER]nowadays[CASE NUMBER]there are several low cost airlines carriers due to which the customers prefertotravelbyairandnotbyrail.AboutTransportDepartment[CASE NUMBER] he argued that the inbound customers (travelling from abroad to India)donotprefervehicleswhichweremorethanthreeyearsold. Duetothatreason[CASE NUMBER]thevehicleswhichweremorethan3yearsold[CASE NUMBER] becamesurplus andwiththem[CASE NUMBER]their driversalso became surplus. Now a day[CASE NUMBER] the management provides taxis to the customers by hiring from open market. He next argued that the Court cannot question the motive behind closure. About Ms. [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]hesubmittedthattheladywasauthorizedvideauthorization letter Ex.MW1/1 to take action against any employee of the management. He admitted that the job of the employees was transferablefromonedepartmenttootherdepartment[CASE NUMBER]butthatclause in the service condition cannot bind management to transfer the employee[CASE NUMBER]whoseservicehasbeenterminatedduetoclosureofhis Department[CASE NUMBER] to some other department. He next argued that the vehicleswhichhadbecomesurplus/threeyearsold[CASE NUMBER]weresoldtothe drivers whose services had come to an end. By acquiring those vehicles[CASE NUMBER] said drivers have become independent entrepreneurs by startingtheirownbusiness. Profitmakingisnogroundtobarthe managementfromclosingdownanydepartment.
8. InJ.K.SyntheticsVs.[ENTITY]TradeUnionKendra &Ors.[CASE NUMBER]AIR2001SC531[CASE NUMBER]theHon'bleApexCourtheldthatclosure neednottobeofentireplant.Theclosurecanalsobeofapartofthe plant.
InWorkmenoftheIndianLeafTobaccoDevelopment Col[CASE NUMBER]Ltd.[CASE NUMBER]GunturVs.TheManagementofIndianLeafTobacco DevelopmentCo.Ltd.[CASE NUMBER]Guntur[CASE NUMBER]AIR1970SC860[CASE NUMBER]theApexCourt heldthattheIndustrialTribunalcannotinterferewiththediscretion exercisedbyacompanyinamatterofclosingdownofsomeofits branchesordepots.Itfurtherheldthatevenifsuchclosuremaynot amounttoclosureofbusinessofthecompany[CASE NUMBER]theTribunalhasno powertoissueordersdirectingacompanytoreopenacloseddepot orbranch[CASE NUMBER]ifthecompanyinfactclosesitdownandthatclosureis genuineandreal. Stoppageofpartofabusinessisanactofthe management which is entirely in the discretion of the company carryingonthebusiness.
9. In [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] lead to the closing of the other or the one cannot reasonablyexistwithouttheother. Itfurtherheldthatfunctional integrityassumesanaddedsignificanceinthecaseofclosure.The Courtclarifiedthattheclosuremeanspermanentclosingdownofa place of employment or part thereof. If a unit or part of an undertakingwhichhasnofunctionalintegrity withotherunitsis closed[CASE NUMBER]itwillamounttoclosurewithinthemeaningofSection25 FFF.
Regardingrightsoftheemployeesoftheclosedunit[CASE NUMBER]the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded in [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] TradeUnionKendra&Ors.(supra)thatsuchemployeesareentitled only to closure compensation as per [SECTION] of the Act. It clarifiedthattheemployeesgetonlycompensationunderthatSection with the help of [SECTION][CASE NUMBER] but both sections are not comparable because in the case of violation of [SECTION][CASE NUMBER] the employeecangetreinstatementetc.butifthecasefallsunder[SECTION] and retrenchment compensation is not paid[CASE NUMBER] he cannot be grantedreinstatementetc.Heisentitledtogetonlycompensation.
10. [PRECEDENT][CASE NUMBER] the managementhadcloseddownitsfactorywhichusedtomanufacture articles.Itstartedpurchasingsucharticlesfromothermanufacturer andstartedputtingits owntrademarksonthosearticles. Hon'ble ApexCourtheldthatmanufacturingunitswereclosed.Stampingof trademarkonpurchasedarticlesdidnotamounttomanufacturing.
In [PRECEDENT]doesnot conferanyrightinemployeetoseekcontinuityofemploymentin thatconcernafterclosureofbusinessofitsemployer.
11. Hon'bleSupremeCourtclarifiedtherightsofemployees sackedduetoclosureoftheirunits[CASE NUMBER]inHatisinghMfg.Co.Ltd.and Anr. Vs. [ENTITY] (UOI) and Ors.[CASE NUMBER] [PRECEDENT] in followingwords: "There is between the text of [SECTION] and s.
25FFF(1) a significant difference in phraseology. Whereas by [SECTION] - the constitutionalvaliditywhereofdoesnotfallto be determined in these petitions - certain conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen are prescribed[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] merely imposes liability to give notice and to pay compensation on closure of an undertaking whichresultsinterminationofemploymentof workmen.Unders.25F[CASE NUMBER]noworkmanemployed inanindustrialundertakingcanberetrenched bytheemployeruntil(a)theworkmanhasbeen givenonemonth'snoticeinwritingindicating thereasonsforretrenchmentandtheperiodhas expiredortheworkmanhasbeenpaidsalaryin lieuofsuchnotice[CASE NUMBER](b)theworkmanhasbeen paidretrenchmentcompensationequivalentto 15days'averagesalaryforevery completed yearofserviceand(c)noticeintheprescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government. [SECTION] however enacts that the workman shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provision of [SECTION] if the undertaking is closedforanyreason[CASE NUMBER]asiftheworkmanhas beenretrenched.Bytheplainintendmentofs.
25FFF(1)[CASE NUMBER]therighttonoticeandcompensation for termination of employment flows from closureoftheundertaking;theclausedoenot seektomakeclosureeffectiveuponpaymentof compensation and upon service of notice or payments of wages in lieu of notice. An employer proposing to close his undertaking mayservenoticeofterminationofemployment andifhefailstodoso[CASE NUMBER]hebecomesliabletopay wagesfortheperiodofnotice. Onclosureof anundertaking[CASE NUMBER]theworkmenareundoubtedly entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with [SECTION] as if they had been retrenched i.e.[CASE NUMBER] the workmen are entitled besides compensation to a month's notice or wagesinlieuofsuchnotice[CASE NUMBER]butbytheuseof words "as if the workman had been retrenched" the legislature has not sought to place closure of an undertaking on the same footing as retrenchment under [SECTION] By s.
25F[CASE NUMBER] a prohibition against retrenchment until theconditionsprescribedbythatsectionsare fulfilled is imposed; by [SECTION][CASE NUMBER] termination ofemploymentonclosureofthe undertakingwithoutpaymentofcompensation and without either serving notice or paying wages in lieu of notice[CASE NUMBER] is[CASE NUMBER] not prohibited.
Payment of compensation and payment of wagesfortheperiodofnoticearenottherefore conditionsprecedenttoclosure."
[PRECEDENT].
12. Following principles are deducible from above case laws:
1. It is not necessary that the management should close downitsentirebusiness. Closureofaunit/division/ department/partofundertakingisclosureinlaw.
2. Thereshouldbeactualclosure.
3. Thecourtcannotgobehindthemotiveofclosure.
4. Theclosedunitshouldnothavefunctionalintegritywith theotherunits.
5. Theemployeesofaclosedunit[CASE NUMBER]withthehelpofSection [SECTION][CASE NUMBER]areentitledtoonlyclosure compensation. If such compensation has not been given[CASE NUMBER]thatwouldnotleadtoreinstatement. Noticeof closureandcompensationcanbegivenaftertermination of service. Prior notice and prior tender of closure compensationisnotaconditionprecedentforclosureof aunit.
6. Evenifarighthasbeenreservedbyemployertotransfer an employee to another concern[CASE NUMBER] such right does not conferanyrightontheemployeetoseekcontinuityof employmentinanotherconcern[CASE NUMBER]incaseofclosure.
13. ItiscorrectthatCourtcannotgobehindthemotiveof closurebutthereisadifferencebetweenmotiveandreasonthough bothareusedinterchangeably. Forexample[CASE NUMBER]amurdererdrivenby jealousandragehasamotive:tocauseharmtowhatheconceivesas the source of his pain: his cheating wife. He is driven by his emotionstotakeanirrationalactionwhichhedoesnotvalidatewith logic.Hismotiveisjealousy[CASE NUMBER]buthehasnoreasontocommitmurder.
Ifonetakesanumbrellaonasunnyday[CASE NUMBER]thereasonmay bethatitwouldrainlaterintheday.Hisdecisionisconsciousand baseduponfactswhichhehasconsidered.Inthatcase[CASE NUMBER]themotive andreasonarethatheshouldnotgetwet. Butthereasonisthe consciousthoughtandthemotiveisaccompanyingemotion.
Ifapersonrobsabankandforceseveryonetostayon thefloor.Hisreasonisthatifthosepersonsarenotonthefloor[CASE NUMBER]they wouldbeinabetterpositiontoresisthimortoactivatethealarm. Theactionofrobbingabankmaybeirrationalbuttheimmediate decision to force people to stay on the floor is grounded in a consciousdecisionguidedbyfacts.Thereasontoforcepeopleto stayonthefloor[CASE NUMBER]therefore[CASE NUMBER]istopreventresistance.
Inotherwords[CASE NUMBER]themotivereferstoemotionalpropelling forceforanactionwhilereasonisreferringtotheconsciousthinking processandconsciousgoalbehindanaction.
14. Inthecaseinhand[CASE NUMBER]themotiveallegedbytheclaimant behindtheclosureofdepartmentsishismembershipofunion.The managementwantedtoteachsuchpersonsalessonandthatiswhy his servicewasterminated. Suchapleaisthwarted by Indian HumePipeCo.Ltd.Vs.TheirWorkmen (supra).Inthatcase[CASE NUMBER]the ApexCourt hadclearlyheld that the Tribunal cannotgointothe questionastothemotiveoftheappellantinclosingdownitsfactory atBarakarandtoenquirewhetheritwasbonafideormalafidewith someobliquepurpose[CASE NUMBER]namely[CASE NUMBER]topunishtheworkmanfortheunion activitiesinfightingtheappellant.
As has been observed above[CASE NUMBER] there is a difference between motive and reason. The Court can definitely examine reasonsbehindclosure.Thereasonstatedbythemanagementisthat RailwayandTransportDepartmentswerenoteconomicallyviableas thosewererunninginlosses.Suchpleaofthemanagementhasbeen thwartedbythecrossexaminationofMW1whoadmitteditcorrect thatasperEx.WW1/29[CASE NUMBER]theprofitofthemanagementfortheyear ending 3.12.2006 was Rs.63739429/ and for the year ending 31.12.2007[CASE NUMBER]thesamewasRs.209703674/.Hefurtheradmittedthat itwasmentionedinEx.WW1/29thatthemanagementhadmade good profit during financial year ending 31.12.2007. The managementdidnotplaceonrecordthebalancesheet/accountsof RailwayandTransportDepartmentstojustifythattheywererunning intolosses.So[CASE NUMBER]reasonbehindclosureisquitebad.
15. Moreover[CASE NUMBER] there was functional integrity between variousdepartmentsofthemanagement. MW1admitteditcorrect that management provides end to end services to its customers depending upon their requests such as booking their tickets[CASE NUMBER] air tickets[CASE NUMBER]railwaytickets[CASE NUMBER]bustransportaspertheiritinerary[CASE NUMBER]bookingof hotelsattherespectiveplacesoftheirvisits[CASE NUMBER]providingthemvehicles fortheirtours/travelwithinthelocalareas[CASE NUMBER]pickingthemupfrom theairportanddropthemtothehotels[CASE NUMBER] regularlypickingupand droppingthemaspertheschedule[CASE NUMBER]providingthemwithguides[CASE NUMBER]local staffsandtakingcareofallothermiscellaneousneedsasdemanded by the customers. He next admitted that the revenues of the management are generated by selling individual and corporate holidaypackages[CASE NUMBER](outboundandinbound)[CASE NUMBER]byticketingserviceslike Visas[CASE NUMBER]Passports[CASE NUMBER]Tickets-AirandRail.Duetoprovidingofendto endservices[CASE NUMBER]theRailwayandTransportDepartmentswereintegral partsofotherdepartments.
16. Thecontentionofthemanagementisthatithasclosed downRailwayandTransportDepartmentsbut itisthecaseofthe claimant that those departments are still working as there is no closure.
MW1 admitted that http: www.tcindia.com/faq.html wastheofficialwebsiteofthemanagement.Hefurtheradmittedthat inthatwebsite[CASE NUMBER]themanagementhadprovidedwiththedetailsofthe services offered by the management in relation to inbound and outboundtravels[CASE NUMBER]bookingoftickets[CASE NUMBER]modeof takingtheservices[CASE NUMBER] mode of making the payments. He further admitted that Ex MW1/W2(25pages)weretheprinteddownloadedpagesfromthe officialwebsiteofthemanagementandtheircontentsweretrueand correct. AsperpageNo.6ofEx.MW1/W2[CASE NUMBER]tourpackagefrom DelhitoAgrawasof13days.Thetariffofthemanagementincluded alltransferstoorfromhotels[CASE NUMBER]citytours[CASE NUMBER]excursions[CASE NUMBER] drivesbyair conditionedtransport.Itisfurthermentionedthattariffincludestrain fareaspertheitinerary.AsperpageNo.9ofEx.MW1/W2[CASE NUMBER]holiday tour from Delhi to Jaipur[CASE NUMBER] Jaisalmer[CASE NUMBER] Jodhpur[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] Udaipur[CASE NUMBER]BharatpurandAgrawasof8daysandtariffchargedbythe managementincludedcostoftravelalso.AsperpageNo.17ofEx. MW1/W2[CASE NUMBER] the holiday tour package from Chennai to Mysore[CASE NUMBER] Hassan[CASE NUMBER]Bangalore[CASE NUMBER]Kovalam[CASE NUMBER]Periyar[CASE NUMBER]Madurai[CASE NUMBER]Trichy[CASE NUMBER]Pondicherry[CASE NUMBER] Mahabalipuramwasof14days. Itisfurthermentionedthattariff chargedbythemanagementincludedalltransferstoorfromhotels[CASE NUMBER] city tours[CASE NUMBER] excursions[CASE NUMBER] drives by an airconditioned transport. It includedtrainfaresaspertheitineraryalso.Tothesameeffectare thepagesNo.23&24ofEx.MW1/W2.ItbecomesclearfromEx. MW1/W2thatthemanagementwaschargingfromitscustomersfor airconditionedtransporttravellingandfortrainfarealso.Itmeans thatthemanagementhadnotcloseddownRailwayandTransport Departments.
TheclaimanthasplacedonrecorddocumentsfromEx. MW1/W4toEx.MW1/W11toestablishthatthemanagementused tobookrailticketsforitscustomers. Forbookingrailticketsfor journeytobeperformedon10.12.2008and12.12.2008fromDelhito BhopalandfromDelhitoAjmerrespectively[CASE NUMBER]themanagementhad bookedticketsfortwopassengerson06.12.2008videinvoiceEx. MW1/W3 and Ex. MW1/W4. After booking the tickets[CASE NUMBER] the managementhadsentintimationletterEx.MW1/W5toitscustomer byplacingtheletterinenvelopesEx.WW1/M6andEx.WW1/M7. Ultimately[CASE NUMBER] those tickets were booked and such tickets are Ex. MW1/M8andEx.MW1/M9butthemanagementgotthosetickets cancelledasreflectedby Ex.MW1/M10andEx.MW1/M11. All thesedocumentshavebeenadmittedbyMW1hiscrossexamination. These documents establish that the management was definitely providingrailticketsreservationfacilitytoitscustomers.
17. Regarding Transport Department[CASE NUMBER] MW1 admitted it correctincrossexaminationthatonthedateofterminationofservice oftheclaimant[CASE NUMBER]themanagementhadabout15-20busesand15-20 cars. Immediatelyprecedingthedateof termination[CASE NUMBER]inviewof hugedemandinthebusiness[CASE NUMBER]themanagementhadtotakevehicles onrentfromprivatevendorsalso. Henextadmitteditcorrectthat during the one year after termination[CASE NUMBER] the management had hired somevehiclesfromoutside. Hefurtherdeposedthatmanagement had been hiring vehicles from outside regularly. He admitted it correctthatonthedateofterminationofworkmen[CASE NUMBER]theTransport Departmentusedtoprepareadailymovementchartshowingdetails of reporting time of the drivers[CASE NUMBER] the details of the customers[CASE NUMBER] the nameofthehotels[CASE NUMBER]thenameoftheguide[CASE NUMBER]nameofthetransporters. Hefurtheradmittedthatatthetimeoftermination[CASE NUMBER]dutyslip/billof the individual driver with the details of the vehicle[CASE NUMBER] etc. were preparedbythetransportdepartmentofthemanagement.Headded thataftertermination[CASE NUMBER]thesedutiesareperformedbyInboundTours Department.Henextdeposedthatdutyslipsofthedriverswiththeir respectivedutiesanddailymovementordersaremaintainedonday todaybasis.
He next deposed that nature of the business of the management has not been changed even after termination of the claimant. He was asked whether he could produce the daily movementanddutyslipsofthemanagementfromApril[CASE NUMBER]2008to August[CASE NUMBER]2008[CASE NUMBER]butherefusedsayingthatthesameweremisplacedin thecourseofshiftingfromConnaughtPlacetoGurgaoninAugust[CASE NUMBER] 2010. Had MW1 produced those slips[CASE NUMBER] it would have exposed managementthatitwasstillengagedintravellingbusiness. MW1 didnotplaceonrecordanydocumenttoshowthatmanagementhad filedanycomplaintinpoliceorelsewhereregardingmissingofthose documents.Hedidnotfileanydocumenttoshowthatmanagement hadmadeanyefforttolocatesuchdocuments.
Regarding Railway Division[CASE NUMBER] MW1 admitted that for railway ticketing work[CASE NUMBER] the management had a Rail Travel Agent registrationnumberatthetimeofterminationoftheworkmen.He could not admit or deny that the registration number was AAACT4050CST045. He could not tell whether the registration numberhasbeensurrenderedorcancelledbythemanagementfrom railwayauthorities. Headmittedthatwithoutregistrationnumber[CASE NUMBER] the management cannot book or purchase railway tickets commercially. Retainingofregistrationnumberforpurchasingthe railticketscommerciallydefinitelyindicatesthatthemanagementis stillengagedinpurchasingofrailticketsofitscustomers.
Management'spleaisthatthreeyearsoldvehicleshad become surplus as the inbound customers used to demand new vehicles. Those vehicles were sold to drivers whose service was terminated due to closure of Railway Department. Such drivers becameentrepreneurs bysupplyingthosevehiclestomanagement. The management did not examine any former driver or place on recordanydocumentthatithadsoldanyvehicletoaformerdriver. Pleaitselfiscontradictory.Ifthecustomerswerenotacceptingthree yearsoldvehiclesfrommanagement[CASE NUMBER]whytheywouldacceptthose vehiclesfromdrivers.
In view of above discussion[CASE NUMBER] it is held that the management has not closed down Railway and Transport Departments.
18. It is correct that Ms. [ENTITY] was not employee of the management when service of the claimant was terminatedon29.04.08. Atthattime[CASE NUMBER]shewasemployeeof M/s. ThomasCookIndiaLimited. Butshehadbeenauthorizedbythe management vide authorization letter Ex. MW1/1 to take action againsttheclaimant. Moreover[CASE NUMBER]itwasMs.[ENTITY] who had signed on behalf of the management on settlement Ex. MW1/1executedbetweenmanagementandunion.Atoneplace[CASE NUMBER]the claimantistryingtotakebenefitofEx.MW1/1butattheotherplace heisdisputingthecompetencyofMs.[ENTITY] He cannotbeallowedtopickoneandleaveother.Itisheldthatthe ladywascompetenttotakeactionagainsttheclaimant.
Itiscorrectthatjoboftheclaimantwastransferableto anyotherdivisionordepartment. Afterholdingthatmanagement had not closed down Transport / Railway Departments[CASE NUMBER] it is not necessarytodecidewhetherheisentitledtobetransferredtosome otherdepartment[CASE NUMBER]incaseofclosingofhisowndepartment.Butfor thesakeofsettlingthedust[CASE NUMBER]itisheldthatinviewofMassodAhmed Khan&Ors.Vs.HamdardDawakhana(Wakf)/Hamdard(Wakf) Laboratories&Ors(supra)[CASE NUMBER]heisnotentitledtobeabsorbedinany other department if his department was closed down by the management.
19. Inviewofabovediscussion[CASE NUMBER]itisheldthatterminationof servicebythemanagementisillegal.
Relief.
20. Ld. ARW argued that claimant is jobless since terminationofhisserviceandso[CASE NUMBER]reinstatementwithcontinuityof servicesandfullbackwagesbegrantedtotheworkman.
Ld.ARMarguedthatclaimantdidnotplaceonrecord anyapplicationetc.whichmaysuggestthathehadapproachedany other management for employment. In fact[CASE NUMBER] he is gainfully employed.
21. Even if[CASE NUMBER] service of a workman has been terminated illegally[CASE NUMBER] 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 thenormincaseswheretheterminationofthe servicesoftheworkmanwasheldinoperative.
Thedecisionsrenderedinthe1990s[CASE NUMBER]including thedecisionoftheConstitutionBenchinthe Punjab Land Development and Reclamation CorporationLtd.[CASE NUMBER]Chandigarhseemtosuggest thatcompensationinlieuofreinstatementand back wages is now the norm. In any case[CASE NUMBER] sinceweareboundtofollowthedecisionof the Constitution Bench[CASE NUMBER] we[CASE NUMBER] therefore[CASE NUMBER] conclude that reinstatement is not the inevitableconsequenceofquashinganorder oftermination;compensationcanbeawarded inlieuofreinstatementandbackwages.
28. Considering the facts of this case[CASE NUMBER] we arepersuadedtoawardcompensationinlieu of reinstatement and back wages to the workman"
22. In MunicipalCouncil[CASE NUMBER]SujanpurVs.SurinderKumar 2006LLR662[CASE NUMBER]Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthatthereliefof reinstatementisnotautomaticbutisinthediscretionofthecourt.In paragraph16[CASE NUMBER]itwasobservedasunder: "Apartfromtheaforementionederroroflaw[CASE NUMBER] inourconsideredopinion[CASE NUMBER]theLabourCourt andconsequentlytheHighCourtcompletely misdirectedthemselvesinsofarastheyfailed to take into consideration that relief to be grantedintermsofsection11AofthesaidAct beingdiscretionaryinnature[CASE NUMBER]aLabourCourt was required to consider the facts of each casetherefor. Onlybecausereliefbywayof reinstatementwithfullbackwageswouldbe lawful[CASE NUMBER]itwouldnotmeanthatthesamewould begrantedautomatically".
23. InVinodKumar&othersvsSalwanPublicSchool& others WP(c)5820/2011 dt.17.11.2014 Hon[CASE NUMBER]ble Justice [ENTITY]:
11.Havingconsideredtherivalsubmissionsof thecounselsfortheparties[CASE NUMBER]Idonotfindany infirmityintheorderoftheLabourCourt.Itis a settled position of law that even if termination has been held to be illegal[CASE NUMBER] reinstatementwithfullbackwagesisnottobe granted automatically. The Labour Court is withinitsrighttomouldthereliefbygranting alumpsumcompensation.Infact[CASE NUMBER]Inotethat the Labour Court has relied upon three judgments propounding the law that the LabourCourtcanmouldareliefbygranting lumpsumcompensation;theLabourCourtis entitledtograntreliefhavingregardtofacts andcircumstancesofeachcase.
12. Further[CASE NUMBER] the Supreme Court in the followingjudgmentsheldasunder:
(a) In the matter reported as [PRECEDENT]:
"However[CASE NUMBER]evenassumingthattherehadbeen aviolationofSections25Gand25Hofthe Act[CASE NUMBER] but[CASE NUMBER] the same by itself[CASE NUMBER] in our opinion[CASE NUMBER] wouldnotmeanthattheLabourCourtshould have passed anaward ofreinstatement with entirebackwages.ThisCourttimeandagain has held that the jurisdiction under [SECTION] must be exercised judiciously. The workmanmustbeemployedbyStatewithinthe meaningofArticle12of theConstitutionof India[CASE NUMBER]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[CASE NUMBER] whenhisserviceswereterminatedanyperson whowasjuniortohiminthesamecategory[CASE NUMBER] had been retained. His services were dispensedwithasearlyasin1987.Itwould notbepropertodirecthisreinstatementwith backwages.We[CASE NUMBER]therefore[CASE NUMBER]areoftheopinion thatinterestofjusticewouldbesubservedif instead and in place of reinstatement of his services[CASE NUMBER]asumofRs75[CASE NUMBER]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][CASE NUMBER]although[CASE NUMBER]mayleadtothegrantofarelief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of the retrenched workmen[CASE NUMBER] the same would not mean that such a relief is to be granted automaticallyorasamatterofcourse. 25 Theappellanthereinhasclearlystated thattheappointmentsoftherespondentshave beenmadeinviolationoftheprovisionsofthe Adhiniyam.Anappointmentmadeinviolation oftheprovisionsoftheAdhiniyamisvoid.The same[CASE NUMBER]however[CASE NUMBER]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[CASE NUMBER]thus[CASE NUMBER]should nothavebeendirectedtobecontinueddespite therequirementsthereforhavingcometoan end.It[CASE NUMBER]therefore[CASE NUMBER]inourconsideredview[CASE NUMBER]is not a case where the relief of reinstatement shouldhavebeengranted."
(c)Inthematterreportedas TalwaraCoop.
Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar[CASE NUMBER] (2008) 9 SCC 486[CASE NUMBER] the court has stated:
"8. Grant of a relief of reinstatement[CASE NUMBER] it is trite[CASE NUMBER]isnotautomatic.Grantofbackwagesis also not automatic. The Industrial Courts while exercising their power under [SECTION] requiredtostrikeabalanceinasituationof this nature. For the said purpose[CASE NUMBER] certain relevant factors[CASE NUMBER] as for example[CASE NUMBER] nature of service[CASE NUMBER]themodeandmannerofrecruitment viz.whethertheappointmenthadbeenmade inaccordancewiththestatutoryrulessofar asapublicsectorundertakingisconcerned[CASE NUMBER] etc.[CASE NUMBER]shouldbetakenintoconsideration."
(d)Inthematterreportedas [ENTITY].
Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board[CASE NUMBER] (2009)15SCC327[CASE NUMBER]thecourthasstated:
"[ENTITY] articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employeewasfoundtobeillegal[CASE NUMBER]thereliefof reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However[CASE NUMBER] in recent past[CASE NUMBER] therehasbeenashiftinthelegalpositionand in a long line of cases[CASE NUMBER] 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[CASE NUMBER]however[CASE NUMBER]beautomaticallypassed.Theawardof reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workmanhascompleted240daysofworkinayearpreceding the date of termination[CASE NUMBER] particularly[CASE NUMBER] 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."
24. The claimant had worked with the management from 01.04.1999to29.04.08i.e.forabout09years.Hedidnotpinpoint any other management visited for reemployment. Had he tried seriously[CASE NUMBER]hewouldhavedefinitelygotjobofequalstatusandsalary. It is the case of claimant himself that his retirement age was 55 years. Taking into account all these facts[CASE NUMBER] the management is directedtopay50%backwagestotheclaimantfromthedateof terminationtillthedateoftheaward/superannuation[CASE NUMBER]whicheveris earlier plus 25% of the amount tendered to him. If the amount tenderedhasbeenpaid[CASE NUMBER]thepaidamountshallbedeductedfromthe totalof50%backwagesand25%tenderedamount.Theamountbe paidtohimwithinonemonthfromthedateofpublicationofthis award[CASE NUMBER]failingwhichitshallbeliabletopayinterestonit@9%per annumfromtodaytillitsrealization.Partiestobeartheirowncosts. Awardispassedaccordingly.
25. Therequisitenumberofcopiesoftheawardbesentto theGovt.ofNCTofDelhiforitspublication.Filebeconsignedto RecordRoom.
DictatedtotheSteno&announced(UMEDSINGHGREWAL) intheopenCourton07.10.2016.POLCXVII/KKD[CASE NUMBER]DELHI.