Management decision of termination of service violated Sec. 25F, G, of Act.

Brief facts:

1. In the present suit for setting aside order of termination of service by management, workman has alleged the following grounds:

a. Workman was appointed at the post of 'Tailor' by the management with signatures on the blank appointment letter and other two papers.

b. The management did not issue ESI card and PF number, though it was deducting PF and ESI contribution from his salary.

c. Management was not giving any kind of leaves and the workman was also not issued leave book and he was also not being given overtime wages.

d. Management was not allowing the workman to mark his attendance in the attendance register that is "IN" and "OUT" and it was being done by the management by indicating "P" and the resultant was the less payment of workman showing him three to ten days leave/absent.

e. When workman asked for legal benefits and PF number, the management became angry and refused employment w.e.f. 05.03.2007 without any letter and reasons.

f. The management also did not pay his earned wages for the month of February, 2007.

g. Management also did not pay the retrenchment benefits to the workman along with other dues such as bonus and earned leave wages. The termination of services of the workman is against the all established law of the nation.

h. Workman sent his demand notice vide a letter but management neither took the workman on duty nor gave any reply till date.

Court held as under:

2. Since the workman had completed 240 days service with the management in the preceding one year from the alleged date of termination and since it is not the case of the management that prior to terminating the services of the workman it has followed the procedure as prescribed under section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is clear that the services of the workman were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably. Hence, in these circumstances, it is held that when the workman demanded his legal facilities the management has terminated the services of the workman illegally and unjustifiably in violation of section 25 F, G and H of the industrial Disputes Act. This issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

Relief part.

3. The workman has claimed that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his services and as such he has made a prayer that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. It is a matter of record that the management had moved an application for seeking amendment in the written statement to the extent that "that the reference has become redundant, in as much as the management has closed down its manufacturing activity w.e.f. 31.05.09.

4. It is further submitted that as the relief of reinstatement can be granted only in a living industry and not in a closed industry, Shri Ajay Kumar is not entitled to reinstatement." It is further revealed that the present dispute is pending between the parties ID. 399/07 (old), 396/14 (new) 10/11 since 05.09.2007 i.e. for about more than 8 years and this court is of opinion that once both the parties have lost faith in each other, reinstatement of workman in service would not be in the interest of both the parties and even otherwise it cannot be believed that an able bodied person would remain unemployed for such a long period. Hence, keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that instead of ordering reinstatement, a compensation would be a better option. Hence, this court hereby grants compensation to the workman.

On quantum of compensation.

5. The last drawn salary of the workman was Rs.3736/­ per month. The workman has admitted in his cross examination that he has not searched for employment after 03.03.2007 which means that the workman was not interested to do any job. Hence, in these circumstances, the management is directed to pay the compensation to the workman to the extent of 50% of his last drawn salary or 50% of the minimum wages whichever is higher from the time to time w.e.f. 05.03.2007 i.e. the date of termination of services of the workman up to the date of award, in lieu of his reinstatement, back wages and all other consequential benefits. The management is directed to release the aforesaid payment to the workman within a period of one month from the date of award, failing which this amount shall carry a simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of award till realization.

6. A copy of this award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.

Case Reference-1 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ... vs R.P. Garg, 2015

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR­II, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI