IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA

ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT – XIX
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI

LIR No. 1361/16

Sh. Sunil Kumar

S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh
R/o WZ­144, Maharishi Balmiki
Colony, 80 Gaj, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi – 110 018.

C/o: General Mazdoor Union (Regd.)

T­43, Karampura,
New Delhi – 110 015.
… Workman

Versus

M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd.

11/48A, Ground Floor,
Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi – 110 018.
... Management

Date of institution of the case : 28.03.2016

Date of passing the Award :12.09.2019
A W A R D:

1. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Delhi exercising his

powers conferred by virtue of Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

Dispute Act, 1947 read with Notification No.F­
1/31/616/ESTT./2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009 had sent the following
reference dated 20.11.2015 to this Court for adjudication:
“Whether the services of workman Sh. Sunil
Kumar S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh have been terminated
illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management;
and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?”

2. Pursuant to the service of notice of reference, the

workman had appeared and filed his statement of claim, claiming
therein that he was working with the management since 18.07.2011
as Office Boy and was lastly getting a salary of Rs.8,500/­ per
month against the amount of Rs.9,048/­ as per the minimum wages
notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi. It was stated further by
the workman that he had an unblemished and uninterrupted record
of services to his credit and had never afforded any chance of
complaint to the management of any nature whatsoever. It was
stated further that the management had taken work for 12 hours a
day from the workman but it had not paid any over time wages to
him. Further, the management had also deprived him of the statutory
facilities such as: Minimum Wages, HRA, Leave Book, Leave
Encashment, Annual Increment, C.A. etc. When the workman had
demanded his salary as per the Minimum Wages Act, the

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

management had only given him assurances but no minimum
wages were ever paid to him. Thereafter, the workman had joined
the General Mazdoor Union at Karampura and became an active
member of the same. When the management came to know about
the union membership of workman, then the management became
annoyed from the workman and had threatened to transfer him to
Ghaziabad, U.P. and ultimately, on 14.07.2015, the management
had terminated his services in an illegal and arbitrary manner and
without assigning any reason.

3. On 16.07.2015, the workman had filed a complaint

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura and on this
complaint, the Labour Inspector had visited the premises of
management and had advised the management to reinstate the
workman on duty but the management had not paid any heed to the
same. Thereafter, the workman had sent a demand notice dated
08.08.2015 to the management through speed post. However,
despite its service upon the management, same was neither replied
nor complied by it. Even the conciliation proceedings had also
failed. Hence, the present reference was made. It was prayed by the
workman that he was entitled to be reinstated in service with full
back wages and continuity of his service along with all consequential
benefits arising therefrom.

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

4. Notice of this statement of claim was sent to the
management which was also duly served upon it and management
had also appeared to contest the claim of the workman on merits
and filed its written statement on record wherein the management
had stated that the workman was getting a salary of Rs. 9,295/­ per
month from the respondent. It was stated further that the workman
was transferred from Old Tilak Nagar Delhi Branch to Ghaziabad
RDC Branch vide transfer order dated 16.07.2015, and he was to
report for duty at the said Ghaziabad RDC Branch w.e.f. 17.07.2015,
but he had failed to join his duties at Ghaziabad RDC Branch and
thus, he had abandoned the duties and had failed to join the same
despite reminders dated 29.07.2015, 13.08.2015 and 20.11.2015.

5. On merits, all other factual contents of the statement of

claim which were neither specifically admitted to be correct nor
essentially and purely constituted matter of record, were denied by
the management as wrong and incorrect.

6. To this written statement, the workman had also filed his

replication / rejoinder wherein all the objections of the management
were denied as incorrect and he had reiterated the contents of his
statement of claim as correct.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

this Court vide his order dated 06.02.2017, was pleased to frame the
following issues: ­
1. Whether the workman / claimant had been in
service of the management w.e.f. 18.07.2011 and his
last drawn salary was Rs. 8,500/­ per month as
claimed by the workman? OPW.

2. Whether the claimant was appointed by the

management vide appointment letter dated
18.07.2011 and he was drawing the salary of Rs.
9,295/­ as alleged by the management? OPM

3. Whether the claimant / workman used to

misbehave with his colleagues and superior officers
and is guilty of misconduct, if so its effect? OPM

4. Whether the claimant / workman was transferred

from Old Tilak Nagar, Delhi Branch of the
management company to Ghaziabad RDC Branch
vide order dated 16.07.2015 and was asked to report
for duty at the said Ghaziabad RDC Branch w.e.f.
17.07.2015 and the claimant/workman failed to join
duty at the transferred place even despite reminders
/ communications, dated 29.07.2015, 13.08.2015 and
20.11.2015, if so its effect? OPM

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

 5. Whether the services of the workman / claimant
have been terminated by the management illegally /
unjustifiably? OPW

6. Whether the workman is entitled to the relief

claimant? OPW

7. Relief.

8. In order to discharge the onus of issues, the workman

himself had appeared in the witness box and had filed in evidence,
his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A, wherein he
had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn
affirmation.

9. Besides this, the workman had also placed on record,

the following documents: ­
i. Carbon copy of representation dated 16.07.2015 on union's letter
head addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner is Ex.
WW1/1.

ii. Photocopy of demand notice dated 08.08.2015 is Ex. WW1/2.

iii. Copy of statement of claim filed before the Conciliation Officer is

Ex. WW1/3.

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

10. During his cross­examination conducted by Ld. AR for
the management, he was stated to have joined the management on
18.07.2011. However, his appointment letter was stated to have
been issued to him by the management after 3­4 months of his
joining. A suggestion put to him to the contrary was denied by him as
wrong. He was stated to be 9 th class pass and had joined the
management as Peon and was performing his duty as Office Boy
such as; serving tea, cleaning, marketing and distributing pamphlets
etc. Initially, his salary was Rs. 4,500/­ per month, which was later on
raised to Rs. 6,500/­ and lastly it was Rs. 8,500/­. He had denied the
suggestion regarding his last drawn salary being Rs. 9,295/­ per
month. He was getting two leaves every month from the
management but he could not remember the nature of same. He
was not aware as to whether the earned leaves and casual leaves
were being availed by him, as per the rules of management or not.
However, it was denied by him as wrong that he was availing earned
leaves as well as casual leaves as per the rules of the company. He
was also stated to be receiving bonus from the management besides
his salary at the time of Diwali festival but he did not know if he was
receiving his salary after deduction of ESI and EPF and the
suggestion put to him to the contrary was denied by him as wrong
that his last drawn salary was Rs. 9,295/­ per month inclusive of his
ESI and EPF contribution. The last day of his reporting for the duty
with the management was stated to be 13.07.2015. He also used to

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

sign in the attendance register maintained by the management, a
copy of which was placed on record Ex. WW1/M1.

11. In his further cross­examination conducted by Ld. AR for

the management on 20.03.2018, he had admitted it to be correct
that no correspondence / communication was placed by him on
record in respect of his objections raised in respect of payment of
lesser salary / wages with the management company. A suggestion
put to him to the contrary was denied by him as wrong. Salary used
to be received by him through bank clearance but he could not
remember his account number. Earlier, the salary was credited in
his account with Axis Bank and thereafter, in his HDFC bank
account. It was denied by him as wrong that he had fights with
Branch Managers and other Sr. Audit Manager of the management
company and his work was also not satisfactory. He could not
remember if he had ever received any warning letter dated
15.07.2015 from one Sh. Shoji Paul, Regional Manager of the
management. However, it was denied by him as wrong that due to
his misbehaviour with senior officers, he was given the said warning
letter. It was also denied by him that he was verbally informed about
the said warning letters. He was transferred from Old Tilak Nagar
Banch to Ghaziabad RDC Branch vide his transfer order dated
16.07.2015 (Ex. WW1/M2) as admitted by the workman.

12. In his further cross­examination conducted on

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

12.10.2018, workman had denied the suggestion that he had not
reported for his duty at Ghaziabad RDC Branch on or after
17.07.2015. However, it was admitted by him to be correct that he
had not filed any complaint either with the management or to any
other authority regarding termination of his duties by the
management at its Ghaziabad RDC Branch on 17.07.2015. He had
also denied a suggestion as wrong that he had not filed any such
complaint as he had never reported to join his duty at the transferred
place. The workman was also confronted with three documents Ex.
WW1/M3, Ex. WW1/M4 and Ex. WW1/M5 which were the copies of
letters dated 29.07.2015, 13.08.2015 and 20.10.2015 on which he
had admitted the correctness of his address as appearing at point 'A'
to which he had replied that the said address was pertaining to the
place where his father used to reside on the date on which the said
letters were sent and the same was his reply in respect of document
Ex. WW1/M6 which is the copy of charge­sheet dated 23.11.2015
issued to the workman in respect of his unauthorized absence from
the duties. However, it was denied by him that he had not reported
for his duties despite receipt of those letters nor the same were ever
replied by him. His working hours at Old Tilak Nagar Branch were
stated to be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He had also admitted his
appointment letter Ex. WW1/M7. He was stated to be working as
Valet Parking Boy on daily wages since the date of termination of
his services. Witness was also confronted with the contents of para
12 of his affidavit wherein he had cited the date of his alleged

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

termination as 05.07.2016 instead of 14.07.2015 but witness could
not give any satisfactory reply to substantiate his claim about the
said date to be the date of his alleged illegal termination. Other
formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
Thereafter, workman's evidence was closed.

13. In rebuttal, one Sh. L.D. Sharma of management had

appeared as MW1 and had placed on record, his examination­in­chief
by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A, wherein he had reiterated the stand of
the management as taken in its written statement on solemn
affirmation.

14. Besides this, he had also placed on record, the following

documents: ­
i. Photocopy of certified true copy of resolution dated 22.09.2005
passed by the management in favour of its director Sh. M.G. George
is Ex. MW1/1.

ii. Photocopy of one Power of Attorney executed by Sh. M.G. George

in favour of MW1 dated 09.01.2017 is Ex. MW1/2.

iii. Photocopy of another Power of Attorney executed by Sh. M.G.

George in favour of MW1 dated 09.01.2017 has been again placed
on record as Ex. MW1/3.

iv. Photocopy of a communication / warning notice dated 15.07.2015

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

addressed to workman is Ex. MW1/4.

v. Copy of print out of E­mail dated 14.07.2015 regarding non joining

of services by the workman at his transferred place is Ex. MW1/5.

vi. Photocopy of another complaint dated 15.07.2015 in respect of

workman by Sh. L.K. Arora, Branch Manager is Ex. MW1/6.

vii. Copy of complaint dated 16.07.2015 addressed to SHO, P.S.

Tilak Nagar in respect of conduct of the workman is Ex. MW1/7.

viii. Photocopies of postal receipts in respect of communications Ex.

WW1/M3 to Ex. WW1/M6 are collectively Ex. MW1/8 to Ex. MW1/11.

ix. Photocopies of wage slips of the workman for the months of April,
2015 till July, 2015 are Ex. MW1/12 collectively.

15. During his cross­examination conducted by Ld. AR for

the workman, it was admitted to be correct by the witness that the
workman was working with the management as Office Boy­cum­
Peon. However, he had denied the suggestion that the management
was paying a salary of Rs. 8,500/­ per month to the workman and in
that regard, he had also placed on record document Ex. MW1/12
and had denied a suggestion that the said document was forged and
fabricated. However, he could not remember if the management was

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

also maintaining any complaint register in respect of its employees or
not. Management was stated to be keeping its record of
appointment, attendance, leaves, salary etc. in respect of its
employees and a suggestion put to him to the contrary was again
denied by him as wrong and incorrect. It was also denied by him as
wrong that document Ex. MW1/4 as well as Ex. MW1/6 were
manufactured documents which were never served upon the
workman. It was however admitted to be correct by the witness that
the workman was never charge sheeted nor any inquiry was ever
conducted against him during his service tenure. Witness was also
not aware of the action taken by the police in response to the
complaint Ex. MW1/7. He had also denied a suggestion that the
workman was not residing at the address mentioned on documents
Ex. WW1/M3, Ex. WW1/M4, Ex. WW1/M5 and Ex. WW1/M6.
However, he could not remember if the management had taken any
further action against the workman after serving him with the charge­
sheet or not and also about the fact if the workman was dismissed
from the services after serving him the charge­sheet or not.

16. Management was stated to be not inclined to take the

workman back on job. However, he had no knowledge that the
workman was an active member of union during his service tenure
as well. He had denied the suggestion that the workman was illegally
terminated by the management on 14.07.2015 or that the
management had received demand notice Ex. WW1/2. He had no

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

knowledge about workman having filed any complaint against the
management either before the Labour Office or before the Labour
Commissioner, Karampura. However, it was admitted by him that
the management had obtained the original class 10 th certificate of
the workman at the time of his joining the employment which was still
lying with the management and witness had also handed over the
said certificate to the workman in the Court. Other formal
suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
Thereafter, management's evidence was also closed.

17. In the light of aforesaid testimonies of the parties, my

issue­wise findings are as under: ­
ISSUE NO.1: Whether the workman / claimant had
been in service of the management w.e.f. 18.07.2011 and his
last drawn salary was Rs. 8,500/­ per month as claimed by the
workman? OPW: The onus to prove this issue was upon the
workman. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that the workman
had joined the services of management on 18.07.2011. Hence, this
fact does not remain in controversy any further. However, he had
failed to prove the later part of this issue as besides doing a mere lip
service, he had not placed on record any document nor examined
any co­worker to prove that his last drawn salary was only Rs.
8,500/­ per month.

Hence, this issue is accordingly answered in negative in

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

respect of monthly salary of the workman and decided in favour of
the management and against the workman.

ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the claimant was appointed

by the management vide appointment letter dated 18.07.2011
and he was drawing the salary of Rs. 9,295/­ as alleged by the
management? OPM : The onus to prove this issue was upon the
management, who had placed on record the salary slips of the
workman showing his gross salary to be Rs. 9,295/­ for the months
of June, 2015 as well as July, 2015 and workman in rebuttal had
merely put a suggestion to MW1 regarding the said document being
a forged and fabricated document. However, he had miserably failed
to cite the manner and mode of forgery and fabrication allegedly
committed by the management in respect of the said document.

Hence, the issue is answered in affirmative and is

decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

ISSUE NO.3: Whether the claimant / workman used

to misbehave with his colleagues and superior officers and is
guilty of misconduct, if so its effect? OPM: The onus to prove
this issue was again upon the management, who had placed on
record the documents Ex. MW1/4 to Ex.MW1/7 to show the various
instances of misbehaviour on the part of the workman towards his
senior officers.

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

 In rebuttal, the workman had merely given a suggestion
regarding those documents being forged and fabricated without
explaining the manner and mode of forgery and fabrication. Hence,
this issue is answered in affirmative and is decided in favour of the
management and against the workman.

ISSUE NO.4: Whether the claimant / workman was

transferred from Old Tilak Nagar, Delhi Branch of the
management company to Ghaziabad RDC Branch vide order
dated 16.07.2015 and was asked to report for duty at the said
Ghaziabad RDC Branch w.e.f. 17.07.2015 and the
claimant/workman failed to join duty at the transferred place
even despite reminders / communications, dated 29.07.2015,
13.08.2015 and 20.11.2015, if so its effect? OPM: The onus to
prove this issue was upon the management, who had put a
document Ex. WW1/ M2 to the workman during his cross­
examination which was also admitted to be correct by the workman
which is nothing but his transfer order dated 16.07.2015 whereby he
was transferred from Old Tilak Nagar, Delhi Branch to Ghaziabad
RDC Branch. Once the workman himself had admitted the said
transfer order, hence, it was incumbent upon him to have joined the
duties at his transferred place.

Workman had also admitted the correctness of his

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

address in respect of documents Ex. WW1/M3 to Ex. WW1/M5 but
had denied the receipt of the same but he had remained silent in
respect of postal receipts placed on record as Ex. MW1/8 to Ex.
MW1/10 as proof of their dispatch, hence, an adverse inference has
to be drawn against him regarding non compliance of those
communications.

Therefore, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of

the management against the workman.

ISSUE NO. 5: Whether the services of the

workman / claimant have been terminated by the management
illegally / unjustifiably? OPW The onus to prove this issue was
upon the workman. However, he himself had admitted the factum of
his transfer to Ghaziabad RDC Branch as well as the factum of his
non joining the duty at the transferred place. Once, the workman
himself had failed to join the duty at the transferred place, then the
management had no other option, but to dispense with his services
which fact by any stretch of imagination, could not be held either
illegal or an unjustified act on its part.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in negative and is

decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

ISSUE NO. 6: Whether the workman is entitled to the

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17

relief claimant? OPW: In view of my findings to the Issue No. 4
and 5 above, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by
him. Hence, this issue is decided against the workman and in favour
of management.

ISSUE NO. 7– Relief: In view of my findings to Issues

No. 1 to 6 above, the statement of claim as filed by the workman is
dismissed being devoid of any merits.

Award is accordingly passed. Reference stands

answered in aforesaid terms. Copy of award be sent to Labour
Commissioner for publication. File be consigned to record room.

LOKESH Digitally signed

by LOKESH
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2019.09.18
on 12th Day of September, 2019 SHARMA 16:01:27 +0530
(Lokesh Kumar Sharma)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge
Presiding Officer, Labour Court­XIX
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi

LIR No. 1361/16 Page 17/17