BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] PRESIDING OFFICER:LABOUR COURT XVII:KKD:DELHI DID No.29/07. Unique ID No. 02402C0136982007. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. Leeladhar, C/o Shahdara General Udyog Shramik Union ( Regd.), 1/2481, Gali No. 26, Moti Ram Road, Modern Shahdara, Delhi110032. Workman Versus i) M/s. [ENTITY] Exclusif 51/6, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005. Through Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Partner. Management No.1 ii) M/s. Chetan Exports, 51/6, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005. Through Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Partner. Management No.2 DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.02.2007. DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 01.11.2013. DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 01.11.2013. DID 29/07 1/27 A W A R D : 1. This is a direct industrial dispute filed by the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter "the Act") against the managements. 2. In her claim, it is submitted by the workman that she was working with management No.1 since 01.07.2000 on the post of Repairman. Her last drawn salary was Rs.3,000/ per month. Both the managements are engaged in same kind of business. They are working under the same roof, have a single office without any partition and employees of one management work for the other management also, as per the oral directions given by the managements. The employees are made to work in both the managements in such a way that it is difficult for the employee to find out as to whose employee he/she is, even after working for the managements for years. However, both the managements have been separately registered under [ACT] and EPF. The managements never prepared the records of the workman properly, never issued any appointment letter nor it ever gave the other legal facilities like annual leaves, causal leaves, minimum wages, designation as per the work of the workman, salary as per the designation of the DID 29/07 2/27 workman, overtime, bonus, leave book, wages slip, attendance card, etc, etc. Whenever the workman demanded the same, the managements gave only false assurances. The managements obtained signatures of the workman on some blank papers, printed forms, vouchers with revenue stamps and receipt for full and final settlement on the pretext of giving these facilities. The workman was on medical leaves from 25.10.2006 to 01.11.2006. When she reported for duty on 02.11.2006, Sh. [ENTITY], Partner of the management did not allow her to join her duties and instead terminated her services saying that the management had terminated all its employees. The termination, being without any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation or payment, is illegal and unjustified and in violation of [SECTION] of the Act. The management also withheld the salary of the workman for the months of September and October 2006. Employees junior to the workman are still working with the managements, which is in violation of [SECTION] of the Act. The managements have also appointed some other person in place of the workman after her termination, which is in violation of [SECTION] of the Act. The workman with other females employees of the managements sent a complaint to the Conciliation Officer, Pusa Road and a demand notice through Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate to the managements. The managements did not reinstate the workman despite DID 29/07 3/27 receipt of the notice. The workman with other female employees of the managements became a member of Shahdara General Udyog Shramik Union (Regd.) on 03.11.06 and again lodged a complaint in the Labour Office through the Union and raised the demand in respect of the bonus. The Union also sent a demand notice dated 03.11.06 to the managements by registered AD as well as UPC. Despite service of the demand notice, no reply was sent by the managements. On the joint complaint dated 23.10.06, the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] approached the managements on 06.11.06, where the Proprietor of the managements Sh. [ENTITY] refused to reinstate the workman and the other similarly terminated female employees but stated that he shall make the payment of earned wages on 07.11.06 in the factory itself. This statement of Sh. [ENTITY] was recorded by the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] which was signed by Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], (a representative of the Union). However, only the earned wages for October 2006, and that too less than minimum wages, was paid on 08.11.06 in the presence of Labour Inspectors Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], which the workman accepted under protest, which was noted by the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] in his proceedings. It is only on 08.11.06 i.e. at the time of payment of earned wages that the workman and other employees came to know for the first DID 29/07 4/27 time that the managements have shown 20 persons to be employees of M/s. [ENTITY] Exclusif and the remaining three to the employees of M/s. Chetan Exports. When the records of both the managements were checked by the Labour Inspector, it was found that the name of only four employees were registered in the records of M/s. [ENTITY] Exclusif (Management No.1) and there were only 3 names in the register of M/s. Chetan Exports (Management No.2). The managements failed to produce records of other 16 employees. It was learnt that no records of these 16 employees was prepared. The earned wages for the month of October 2006 of these 16 employees were paid on a plain paper after obtaining their signatures. The managements admitted these 16 employees also to be the employees of M/s. [ENTITY] Exclusif (Management No.1). The workman has never left the job of her own will nor she has received any full and final settlement. She is still ready to work with the management. The workman is unemployed since the date of her termination despite her best efforts. Hence, the present claim seeking reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services. 3. Both the managements contested the claim by filing a joint DID 29/07 5/27 written statement. Relationship of employee and employer between the workman and the management No. 1, initiation of conciliation proceedings by the workman and sending of the legal notice by the workman are not disputed by the managements. The other contents of the claim are denied by the managements. It is submitted by the managements that workman was working as Helper with management No. 1 w.e.f. July, 2002. The management never terminated her services. She herself left her service and has already settled her account by taking her full and final payment. The legal notice was duly replied by the management. The workman is gainfully employed with some other employer. The managements have sought dismissal of the claim with costs. 4. In her rejoinder, the workman has controverted the pleas of the managements and has reiterated those of her claim. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the workwoman voluntarily left the services of management after taking full and final settlement amount as stated in para 2 of PO of WS, if so, its effect? OPM. DID 29/07 6/27 2. Whether services of workwoman have been terminated illegally and / unjustifiably by the management, if so, its effect? OPW. 3. Relief 6. The workman examined two witnesses including herself in support of her case whereas although the managements filed an affidavit of Sh. [ENTITY], the witness was not produced for his crossexamination. Evidence of the managements was closed by the order of the Court. 7. Joint written arguments were filed by the managements who have relied upon the following authorities in support of their contentions: [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. b) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. c) 2009 (5) [CASE NUMBER] M/s. [PRECEDENT]. d) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] Sundeep Foam Industries. P. Ltd. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative for workman (ARW) relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions: a) [PRECEDENT], M/s. [ENTITY] ( India ) Tools vs Ram Surat & another. b) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. c) [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. 9. I have heard Authorised Representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the record including the written arguments filed by the managements as well as the authorities relied upon by both the parties. 10. My issuewise findings are as follows: ISSUES NO. 1 & 2 DID 29/07 8/27 11. Both the issues are being taken up together as both are interconnected. The burden of proving issue No. 1 was on the managements, whereas the burden of proving issue No. 2 was on the workman. 12. It has been held in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] as follows: "4. He has also placed a decision of the Allabad High Court in [PRECEDENT], wherein a similar fact situation had arisen. In the said decision, it has been observed that the statement of claim supported by the affidavit of the claimant constitute the preliminary evidence and it is upon the Management / employer to controvert the same and if not so controverted then nothing further needs to be proved and done by the claimant. However, the primary responsibility of establishing his case rests on the claimant. And in that case, the Allahabad High Court held that the Labour Court had patently erred in holding that the burden of proof lay upon the employers. It further held that the obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led. The party making the allegation and seeking redressal must seek an opportunity to lead evidence. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the said Allahabad High Court DID 29/07 9/27 in the case of [PRECEDENT]. 5. Agreeing with the view taken in the said decision of the Allahabad High Court, I hold that the impugned order dated 22nd February, 1989 passed by the Labour Court asking the petitioner to lead evidence first cannot be sustained in law an, I accordingly quash the same. The claimant is to lead evidence first as it is he who has to establish his allegations. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for adjudication as per provisions of law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its view on the merits of the reference. In these circumstances there shall be no order as to costs." (underlining be me.) 13. It is clear from the authority that the initial burden of proving the case is on the workman. 14. In her affidavit filed as [ENTITY], the workman as WW1 fully supported her case as stated in her claim and relied upon complaint dated 23.10.06 sent by her coworkers to the Conciliation Officer as Ex WW1/1, legal notice dated 23.10.06 sent on behalf of her coworkers to the managements as Mark A, postal receipts of Mark A as Ex WW1/2 and Ex WW1/3, two acknowledge cards in respect of the legal notice both as Ex WW1/4, complaint dated 03.11.06 sent by the Shahdara General [ENTITY] Union (regd.) on behalf of her co DID 29/07 10/27 workers to the Labour Department as Ex WW1/5, demand notice dated 03.11.06 on behalf of her coworkers forwarded by Sh. [ENTITY], Secretary of the Union to the managements as Ex WW1/6, annexure () to Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/7, annexure () to Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/8, another copy of the same notice as Ex WW1/9, carbon copy of Ex WW1/7 as Ex WW1/10, carbon copy of Ex WW1/8 as Ex WW1/11, two postal receipts in respect of Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/12 and Ex WW1/13 respectively, one UPC receipt in respect of Ex WW1/6 as Ex WW1/14, another notice dated 03.11.06 sent by Sh. [ENTITY], Secretary of the Union on behalf of workman and some other persons to the Bonus Officer as Ex WW1/15, report dated 18.12.06 of Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] as Ex WW1/16, claim filed by the workman and certain other persons before the Conciliation Officer as Ex WW1/17, [ACT] card of coworker [ENTITY] as Ex. WW1/18, four PF receipts in respect of coworker [ENTITY] as Ex. WW1/19 (collectively), demand notice dated 03.11.2006 given by her to both the managements as Ex. WW1/B, postal receipts in respect of Ex. WW1/B as Ex. WW1/C (collectively), complaint dated 03.11.2006 sent by Sh. [ENTITY], Secretary of the Shahdara General Udyog Shramik Union (Regd.) to the Assistant Labour Commissioner on her behalf as Ex. WW1/D, her [ACT] card as Ex. WW1/E, six PF receipts as Ex. WW1/F (collectively). DID 29/07 11/27 15. In her crossexamination, she denied that she was appointed with the management w.e.f. July, 2002 and not since, 2000 and that the management never terminated her services and that she has left the services on her own after taking her full and final settlement and that she was employed and earning Rs.8,000/ per month. She admitted that she did not make any complaint to the Labour Department / police authorities about taking of her signatures and thumb impressions by the management on blank papers and vouchers. 16. WW2 is Sh. [ENTITY], General Secretary of Shahdara General [ENTITY] (Regd). In his affidavit filed as [ENTITY], he stated that 23 terminated employees of the management including the workman joined the Union after 23.10.06 and authorised him for future proceedings against the managements. All 23 employees including the workman made a complaint dated 03.011.06 through Union to Assistant Labour Commissioner and also sent a demand notice on the same day to the Bonus Officer for payment of bonus. On the complaint dated 23.10.06, the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] with Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] with him ( WW2) went to the Office DID 29/07 12/27 of the managements where Sh. [ENTITY], partner of both the managements told the Labour Inspector in his presence and in presence of all the 23 employees that he is not ready to take back all the 23 employees on duty and that he shall make payment of earned wages of pending months to 23 employees on 07.11.06 in the factory premises. This statement of Sh. [ENTITY] was noted by the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] in his official register and signatures of Sh. [ENTITY] and that of WW2 were taken on the statement. The payment was made on 08.11.06 by Sh. [ENTITY] in the presence of Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY], Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY], WW2 to all the 23 employees, pertaining to wages of October 2006 and overtime. Sh. [ENTITY] had admitted before the Labour Inspector Sh. [ENTITY] in his (WW2's) presence that out of the 23 employees, 20 were employees of M/s. [ENTITY] Exclusif and remaining three were employees of M/s. Chetan Export and that the managements had not prepared records of most of the employees. WW2 relied upon the same documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/17 as relied upon by WW1. 17. The testimony of WW2 goes unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted as there is no crossexamination of WW2 at all. Hence, the testimony of WW2 is deemed to be admitted by the managements. DID 29/07 13/27 18. As noted above, although the managements filed an affidavit of Sh. [ENTITY], the witness did not appear for his cross examination. Hence, the affidavit cannot be read. The result is that no evidence has been led by both the managements. 19. It has been held in Ms. [ENTITY] (India) Tools (supra) relied upon by Ld. ARW as follows : "15. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and having perused the records we notice that the factum that the workman was in the service of the management till 22 nd of April, 1993 is not disputed. While, the workman contends that his services from that day were wrongfully terminated, the appellant contends that the workman voluntarily left the services of the appellant having taken all his dues. Since the respondent workman was in the service of the appellant
management at least up to 22 of the April 1993, nd the burden
of proving that he voluntarily left the services then falls on appellant management. This the appellant contends is satisfied by the oral evidence adduced by the management and the documentary evidence produced in the form of the receipt M/X (M3) purportedly executed by the workman and the entries in the bonus register m/X. The labour court considering the said document which is said to be a receipt executed by the respondent, noticed the fact that the original of this document was never produced by the appellant and what was produced was only a photocopy. Even this photocopy was not confronted to the workman when he was in the witness box and the signature found in the said photocopy as also in the photocopy of the bonus register shows that though two documents came into existence simultaneously the ink with which the respondent workman is supposed to have signed the two documents was different. In such circumstances, it held that it was not safe to rely upon the said document to accept the case of the appellant. The High Court in this regard held though it may be not necessary to apply the strict rule of evidence in regard to production and proof of a document still the workman ought to have been provided with an opportunity to explain his version as to the alleged receipt having been executed by him and such opportunity not having been offered by confronting the document to the workman the appellant in effect has violated the principles of natural justice and hence by its act of default the workman's case cannot be prejudiced.
16. However, as stated above Sh. [ENTITY], learned senior counsel contended that the workman was aware of the contents of the document because he had the photocopy of the document served on him based on which he had cross examined the management witness, He further contended that since the workman had been unable to establish through his cross examination of the management witness that the receipt in question was not executed by him, it should be held that the document in question stands proved and the case of the management as to the voluntarily abandonment of service by the respondent after taking all his dues is also established.
17. We are unable to accept this argument because if we look into the overall proceedings before the labour court, we notice that though the management did take the stand that the workman had left the services of the appellant management voluntarily by receiving his total dues in full and final settlement it did not, at the stage of filing of its written statement, contend that the workman has executed a receipt which is now sought to be produced as exhibit M/X (M3). This coupled with the fact that the said document was not confronted to the respondent workman, in our opinion is sufficient to hold that this document cannot be relied upon for establishing the fact that the management has proved its case that the workman had voluntarily left his services. The trial court has further buttressed this finding by noticing the different in the ink in the receipt as well as the bonus register as also the absence of revenue stamp in the receipt from which it drew an inference that the receipt in question may have been signed previously but was filled up subsequently. This finding of the labour court has been accepted by the High court and this being a finding of fact and which cannot be said to be perverse, we are not inclined to interfere with the same in this appeal."
(underlining by me)
20. It is clear from the authority that since the fact that the workman was in the service of management No. 1 till 01.11.06 is not disputed between the parties and since the workman has contended that her services were terminated w.e.f. 02.11.2006 whereas the case of the management is that she left the services voluntarily after collecting full and final payment, the burden of proving that the workman voluntarily left the services is on the managements.
21. As noted above, no evidence has been led by the managements. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the management No. 1 has failed to prove that workman voluntarily left the services after collecting her full and final payment.
22. As in the authority, it is nowhere the case of the management in the written statement that any receipt was executed by the workman for the full and final payment, the workman was not confronted with any such receipt and the original receipt has not been placed on record by the management. Even with the affidavit of MW1, only a photocopy of the receipt has been placed on record. Further, in the written statement, no date on which the workman allegedly resigned has been given and the managements are absolutely silent on the aspect whether the full and final payment was made on the same day on which the workman allegedly resigned or on a later date and if so, on what date. In fact, the case of the workman in the present case is on a much better footing than the case in the authority. In the authority, photocopy of the receipt was produced and was relied upon by the witness of the management in his [ENTITY] who also faced cross examination. In the present case, no evidence has been led by the managements at all. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the authority is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, it is to be held that the services of the workman were terminated by the management and that the workman did not voluntarily leave the services of the management after taking full and final settlement amount.
23. During the arguments, it was contended by Ld. [ENTITY] that the factum of termination of her services has not been mentioned by the workman in Ex. WW1/1 as well as in the legal notice Mark A which both are dated 23.10.2006 i.e. the date of alleged termination. The contention of Ld. [ENTITY] is that this fact itself shows that services of the workman were never terminated by the management and that she resigned from the job and accepted full and final payment. In his reply / arguments, Ld. ARW merely stated that this facts is irrelevant. I am of the view that the contention of Ld. [ENTITY] is misplaced. As noted above, the date of termination given by the workman in her claim is 02.11.06. It is true that in para 25 of the claim, she has given the date as 23.10.06. The same appears to be a typographical error for the simple reason that in case the date of termination was 23.10.2006, the facts stated in para 10 of the claim regarding the workman being on medical leave till 01.11.2006 etc. would not have been stated. Even otherwise, as noted above, the management filed an affidavit of Sh. [ENTITY] as [ENTITY]. Since this witness did not appear for his cross examination, the affidavit cannot be read in favour of the managements. However, there cannot be any doubt that this affidavit can certainly be read against the managements. In the affidavit, it is submitted by MW1 Sh. [ENTITY] that claimant voluntarily tendered her resignation dated 03.11.2006. It is clear that even managements do not dispute that the workman was in the service of management No. 1 till 01.11.2006. Hence, the contention of Ld. [ENTITY] is rejected.
24. I have carefully perused the authorities relied upon by Ld. [ENTITY] that there cannot be any dispute about the propositions of law laid down in the authorities, but it is a settled law that each case is to be decided according to its own facts. None of the authorities relied upon by the management pertains to Labour Court. None of the authorities lays down any principle of law contrary to those I have applied above. Hence, with great respect, I am of the view that none of the authorities relied upon by the management is applicable to the facts of the present case.
25. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the workman did not voluntarily leave the services of the management No. 1 and that her services have been terminated by the management.
26. It is nowhere the case of the management No. 1 that it complied with [SECTION] of the Act while terminating / retrenching the services of the workman. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the termination of the services of the workman is in violation of [SECTION] of the Act and is, therefore, illegal and unjustified.
27. However, as far as violation of [SECTION] alleged by the workman is concerned, neither in the claim nor in the rejoinder, nor even in her affidavit filed as [ENTITY], the workman has given particulars of any person junior to her retained by the management No. 1 at the time of her alleged termination or who was engaged by the management No. 1 after her termination. Hence, it is held that the workman has failed to prove violation of [SECTION] of the Act.
28. The effect of the illegal termination shall be considered while deciding issue No. 3.
29. In view of the above discussion, both the issues are decided in favour of the workman and against the managements. ISSUE NO. 3.
30. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] Haryana State [PRECEDENT] as follows :
"15. It would be, thus, seen that by catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of [SECTION] although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed "
(underlining by me)
31. It is clear from the authority that reinstatement is not automatic even if the order of termination / retrenchment is held to be bad.
32. MW [ENTITY], in his affidavit filed as [ENTITY], has stated that the management has closed down its manufacturing activity w.e.f. 30.05.2008. However, since no evidence has been led by the managements, there cannot be any doubt that this fact has not been proved.
33. As noted above, in her claim, the workman has contended that she joined the management No. 1 w.e.f. 01.07.2000. On the other hand, the case of the managements in the written statement is that she joined w.e.f. July, 2002. Sh. [ENTITY] in his affidavit filed as [ENTITY] itself stated that the workman joined management No. 1 on 01.07.2000. Hence, it stands proved on record that workman joined the management No.1 w.e.f. 01.07.2000. Hence, she worked with management for less than 6 years.
34. It is almost seven years since the date of her termination.
35. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant reinstatement to the workman and, thus, the workman is entitled to compensation only in lieu of reinstatement.
36. In the claim, the workman has claimed her last drawn wages to be Rs.3,000/ per month. This fact is not specifically denied by the managements in its written statement. Hence, the same is deemed to be admitted by the managements. Even otherwise, in her affidavit filed as [ENTITY], the workman specifically stated that her last drawn wages were Rs.3,000/ per month. This testimony of the workman goes unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted as there is no crossexamination of the workman in this regard. Hence, this testimony is deemed to be admitted by the managements. As noted above, no evidence has been led by the managements. Hence, it is held that the last drawn wages of the workman were Rs.3,000/ per month.
37. In the claim, it is specifically stated by the workman that she is unemployed since the date of her termination despite her best efforts. In the written statement, the managements have submitted that the workman is gainfully employed with some other employer. No particulars of any such employer have been given in the entire written statement by the managements. In her affidavit filed as examinationin chief, the workman again specifically stated that she is unemployed since the date of her termination despite her best efforts. In her cross examination, she stated that she has four children out of which three are school going. She denied that she is employed and earning Rs.8,000/ per month. As noted above, the management filed an affidavit of Sh. [ENTITY] as [ENTITY]. Since this witness did not appear for his cross examination, the affidavit cannot be read in favour of the managements. However, there cannot be any doubt that it can be read in favour of the workman. In his affidavit, it is nowhere stated by MW [ENTITY] that the workman is gainfully employed anywhere. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it stands established on record that the workman is unemployed since the date of her termination despite her best efforts.
38. Keeping in the view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that interest of justice is best served if the workman is given compensation of Rs.1,75,000/ (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand Only) in lieu of reinstatement.
39. Coming to costs, as noted above, the case of the managements in the written statement is that the workman joined management No. 1 w.e.f. July, 2002 only and not w.e.f. 01.07.2000 as contended by the workman in her claim. However, their own witness MW1 in his first affidavit filed as [ENTITY] itself, has given the date of joining of the workman as 01.07.2000 i.e. the same date as given by the workman. It is clear that the date of joining mentioned by the management in the written statement was false to their knowledge. Hence, I am of the view that it is a fits case where exemplary costs should be imposed on the managements. Hence, a cost of Rs.22,000/ (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) is imposed on the managements.
40. Further, a perusal of the record shows that costs were imposed on the managements several times which have not been paid by them. A cost of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand Only) was imposed on 30.08.2012, a cost of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) was imposed on 30.10.2012 and a cost of Rs.6,000/ was imposed on 20.12.12. During the arguments, it was contended by Ld. [ENTITY] that the leading of evidence by the managements was made subject to these costs and, at best, the evidence of the managements can be closed for non payment of these costs and, thus, the managements are not required to pay these costs. I do not find any merits in the contention. The costs were adjournment costs which have to be paid by the managements.
41. The management No. 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,75,000/ (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand Only) and both the managements are directed to pay the aforesaid amounts of Rs. 22,000/ (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) and Rs.13,000/ (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Only) total Rs.35,000/ (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication of this award failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on all the amounts from today till realization. The claim is, thus, allowed.
42. The requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the Government of NCT of Delhi for its publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated to the Steno and announced in the open Court on 01.11.2013. ([ENTITY]) POLCXVII/KKD/DELHI