IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
Cum-LABOUR COURT NO 1,
Dwarka Court complex, Sector 10,
Delhi 110075
LCA No.:. . . . .2019
In The Matter of:
Sunita ...Claimant
Through her Authorised representative
Room-3C, 352/2A, Munirka Village
C/o – Anil Dalal
New Delhi-110067
vs
1. The Registrar
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Mehrauli Road
New Delhi-110067 …Respondent 1
2. M/s Rakshak Securitas Pvt Ltd
Through its Managing Director
Address: T-5, Plot No.12,
Manish Plaza-III,
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075, India ..Respondent 2
INDEX
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1 Memo of Parties 1
2
Application Under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 after getting certificate of 2A
from the conciliation officer/appropriate authority
under ID Act, 1947.
3 Letter of Authorization from the workmen
4 Application filed in the office of conciliation
officer/appropriate authority under ID Act, 1947.
Applicant/Workmen
THROUGH
DATED:
DELHI:
(SURYA PRAKASH) (PROTYUSH NANDI) (ASHWINI NIRAJ)
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE
CLAIMANTS
M: 9871787075/9717287478
[email protected] C-90-Z,DDA FLATS, JAHANGIRPURI
DELHI-110033
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
Cum-LABOUR COURT NO 1,
Dwarka Court complex, Sector 10,
Delhi 110075
LCA No.:. . . . .2019
In the matter of:
MEMO OF PARTIES
Sunita Devi ...Claimant
Through her Authorised representative
Room-3C, 352/2A, Munirka Village
C/o – Anil Dalal
New Delhi-110067
vs
3. The Registrar
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Mehrauli Road
New Delhi-110067 …Respondent 1
4. M/s Rakshak Securitas Pvt Ltd
Through its Managing Director
Address: T-5, Plot No.12,
Manish Plaza-III,
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075, India ..Respondent 2
Applicant/Workmen
THROUGH
DATED:
DELHI:
(SURYA PRAKASH) (PROTYUSH NANDI) (ASHWINI NIRAJ)
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE
CLAIMANTS
M: 9871787075/9717287478
[email protected] C-90-Z,DDA FLATS, JAHANGIRPURI
DELHI-110033
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
Cum-LABOUR COURT NO 1,
Dwarka Court complex, Sector 10,
Delhi 110075
In The Matter of:
Sunita Devi ...Claimant
Through her Authorised representative
Room-3C, 352/2A, Munirka Village
C/o – Anil Dalal
New Delhi-110067
vs
5. The Registrar
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Mehrauli Road
New Delhi-110067 …Respondent 1
6. M/s Rakshak Securitas Pvt Ltd
Through its Managing Director
Address: T-5, Plot No.12,
Manish Plaza-III,
Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075, India ..Respondent 2
Application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The claimant Mrs Sunita Devi through her authorised representative would humbly like to
submit the following:-
Illegal Termination
1. That the claimant was employed as a sanitation worker (Safai Karamchari) by
Jawaharlal Nehru University (Respondent No. 1) since April 2005, who is the
principal employer in the present case. She has remained in continuous ,
uninterrupted service for 13 years and 7 months with Respondent No. 1.She is a
workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
During her period of service, she has been issued identity card of several so called
contractors. At the time of her termination, claimant was having identity card of
Rakshak Securitas i.e Respondent No. 2. The copy of the identity card is attached
here as Annexure-A.
The services of the workman was illegally terminated by Respondent No. 1 on
28.11.18 , the letter is attached here as Annexure-B.
Her last drawn salary was Rs. 11,985 for the month November 2018. The photocopy
of salary account is attached as Annexure -C.
2. That workman was illegally terminated from her services by Respondent No. 1 since
28.11.18. She is unemployed since her date of termination. The workman has been
terminated without conducting domestic enquiry. No notice pay and retrenchment
compensation was paid to her, as required under section 25 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
3. There are many workers who have joined after the claimant workman are retained in
the services of Respondent No. 1, whereas the claimant workman was terminated
from the services for participating in the union activities.
4. That the union approached the Respondents 1 and 2 through its representatives to
reinstate the workman Mrs Sunita Devi , but Respondent No. 1 took an adamant
stand and refused to reinstate the terminated workman. Workman and other so called
contract workers were also never paid statutory bonus during her service by
Respondent No. 1. Respondents have also failed to pay other statutory benefits to the
terminated workman like gratuity, leave encashment etc.
Sham and Bogus Contract
5. That Respondent 1 that is Jawaharlal Nehru University (hereinafter JNU) is a central
university with its campus in New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi – 110067. That JNU
employs various categories of employees including sanitation worker/safai
karamchari, mess worker/helper, khalasi/helper, beldar, gardener/maali, wireman,
welder, animal attendant, driver, plumber, carpenter, mason, lift operator, security
guard, lab/office attendant, computer operator etc, as permanent as well so called
contract workers through various sham and bogus contracts. These contractors are
sham and bogus. Such contract practice is to camouflage the employer-employee
relationship between the claimant and the principal employer i.e Respondent No. 1.
6. The above mentioned work in Respondent No. 1 are incidental and necessary for
running the institution. The work done by above categories is permanent and
perennial in nature. These works are ordinarily done through permanent workers of
Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is employing so called contract workers
through sham and bogus contracts whereas there is sufficient work to employ so
called contract workers as permanent workers. So called contract workers are
performing identical work as that of permanent workers of Respondent No. 1. The so
called contract workers were also given similar uniform, masks, gloves as that of
permanent workers to wear during working hours in Respondent No. 1.
7. The nature of work carried out by claimant workman and other so called contract
workers is similar as that of permanent workmen of Respondent No. 1- sweeping,
mopping and dusting. The cleaning materials like Phenyl, Detergents, Harpic, Wiper,
Broom, Bucket, Mugs etc. were issued by the office of the Dean of Students of
Respondent No. 1. The record of issuance of such materials to so called contract
workers are with Respondent No. 1.
8. The period of work of claimant workman and other so called contract workers is also
same as that of permanent workers of Respondent No. 1 i.e 8 hours ( 8 am to 4 pm).
The claimant workman and other so called contract workers use to mark their
attendance everyday in the register placed in the office of Section officer (Officer-
Incharge) of every hostel. The workman and other so called contract workers also use
to mark their attendance everyday in register placed at the main gate of the different
hostels within Respondent No. 1. The attendance record of the claimant workman
and other so called contract workers is with Respondent No. 1. Before her
termination, Workman use to mark her attendance in the office of Section officer of
Shipra hostel.
9. The work of the claimant and other so called contract workers was supervised by
Sanitary inspector, Mr. B.S Khandelwal, who is a permanent worker of the
Respondent No. 1. He is in charge of the sanitation work in hostels and monitors the
work of so called contract workers. He regularly visits hostel to monitor the quality
of sanitation and cleanliness in the hostel premises. In order to camouflage the
employer-employee relationship, Respondent No. 1 has also appointed so called
supervisors among contract workers. Such sham and bogus supervisors directly
report to Mr. Khandelwal. Dean of Students (DoS) of Respondent No. 1 also
conducted regular inspection and monitored the working of so called contract
workers.
10. The claimant workman and other contract workers sought leave after writing
application to the Section officer of Shipra hostel. He used to sanction leave of the
workman. However, workman was not paid for her weekly leave and other holidays.
Workman was only paid for the number of days she worked at Respondent No. 1.
Unfair Labour Practice
11. The claimant is an active member of All India General Kamgar Union (JNU Unit).
The Union through its representative have been regularly raising demands on behalf
of so called contract workers before Respondent No. 1 for better working conditions,
equal pay at par with permanent workers, bonus, overtime pay, earned and casual
leaves etc. All India General Kamgar Union (JNU Unit) filed an application for equal
pay for equal work for so called contract workers before the Deputy Chief labour
Commissioner, where they prayed for deciding wages and other amenities equal to
the wages and other amenities available to the regualr employees of the Respondent
No. 1. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner decided this application and passed
an order dated 17.9.18. The copy of the order is attached here as Annexure-D. The
relevant part of the order is as under:
“That contract workers deployed in different categories from
serial No.1 to 12 in the above table as furnished by the
Principal Employer (PE) are entitled to get the same wages
( equal to the pay with corresponding pay scale along-with
admissible allowances ) as shown above against each category
workmen directly employed by the principal employer for the
same and similar work under the provisions Rule 25(2)(v)(a) for
the respective contract period with each contractor.
“The other categories of outsourced workmen which are not
covered under the above the mentioned designation comparable
to the corresponding category of regular employees of the
Principal Employer are also entitled to the lowest grade of
18000-56900+ DA +allowances as applicable in the
establishment of Principal Employer i.e JNU.”
12. The claimant along with other Union members went to the Respondent No. 1 for
implementation of the order dated 17.9.18. Respondent No. 1 vehemently denied to
implement the order and threatened to terminate the services of the claimant and
other union members, for making such demand. Such threat was to create fear among
the union members. Further, Respondent No. 1 through so called contractor
(Respondent No. 2) issued termination letter dated 27.11.18 and terminated the
services of the workman with immediate effect. This termination letter was received
by the workman, when she went to report for the duty on 28.11.18. The copy of the
termination letter is attached here as Annexure-B. The termination letter also sought
reply from the workman within 5 days of receiving of such letter. After the reply
being filed, another letter stating the termination again to the workman was sent on
4.12.2018 as attached in Annexure E.
13. Workers considered closer to the management are made supervisor, who get higher
salary, phone bill reimbursements and fuel allowances. These workers are instructed
by the management to inform it, about all the union building activities, discourage
the workers from union activities and report the names of workers who get into union
activities. Claimant worker was also threatened for participating in the union
activities and was ultimately issued termination letter on 28.11.18.
14. That the Respondents 1 and 2 engaged in unfair labour practice by terminating the
services of the claimant worker on date 28.11.18 with the malafide intention of
denying the legal rights and benefits to the claimant workman and for instilling fear
among other so called contract workers, who are members of the Union.
15. That such brazenly unfair labour practices of the Respondents 1 have caused
immense mental trauma and financial difficulties to the claimant, who comes from a
socially marginalised and poor background, and have left her without employment
and devoid of any source of income. She is the only earning member in her home and
have four dependent children.
Prayer
Therefore, the claimant would like to pray the following before the competent
authority:-
1. That the Hon’ble authority may pass an order directing the Respondents 1 to reinstate
the applicant workman Ms Sunita Devi with full back wages based upon her last
drawn salary and with continuity in services since her date of termination.
2. That the Hon’ble authority may pass an order directing the Respondents 1 to stop
Unfair labour Practices and victimization of the worker and their Union.
3. To pass any other order or relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.
Workman
THROUGH
DATED:
(SURYA PRAKASH) (PROTYUSH NANDI) (ASHWINI NIRAJ)
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE
WORKMEN
M: 9871787075/9717287478
[email protected]
C-90-Z,DDA FLATS, JAHANGIRPURI
DELHI-110033
