Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar/Raj Kumar vs Matra Ancilleries Pvt. Ltd. on 10 November, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the workmen of the same respondent firm challenging the orders of the Labour Court-VIII, Delhi dated 16.9.2003 and 12.9.2003 whereby the reference were answered against the petitioners by the Labour Court.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners were working with the respondent at D-1/2 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi at the posts of Helper and Packer respectively. The management had shifted its operations from Okhla to Udyog Vihar Gurgaon in August, 1999. Before shifting to Gurgaon the management informed all its workforce about its intention to shift and offered that they should be working at Gurgaon. The petitioners also agreed to it in lieu of payment of additional conveyance allowance every month. An agreement was entered into between the union of workmen and the respondent on 18.8.1999. The main terms of the agreement were as under:
1. The management agrees that all employees shall be transferred from Delhi to Gurgaon at their old service conditions and continuity in service.
2. It is agreed by the employees that they shall join duty of the management at Udyog Vihar within a week. The management shall pay them an additional amount of Rs. 200/- p.m. as conveyance allowance.
3. The services of the employees shall be considered to be continued from their initial date of appointment.
4. The management shall give increment to each employee every year @ 5 % of his wages.
5. It was agreed that if during the period of agreement there is increase in the minimum wages and after annual increment of 5%, the minimum wages are more than the management shall given minimum wages and it would be acceptable to the employees. It was agreed by the management that they shall be continued to govern by Delhi Rules Services, EPF, ESI, Wages etc. and the management shall continue to receive facilities of ESI, PF, Wage Slip etc.
6. It is agreed between both the parties that they shall main congenial and peaceful atmosphere so that industrial peace continues.
7. That the agreement would be valid for a period of one year.
3. This agreement was duly signed by representatives of both the parties and countersigned by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Conciliation Officer). It has also come in evidence that the petitioners were given appointment letter at the time of initial appointment and even in the appointment letter there was a clause that petitioner could be transferred outside Delhi.
4. It is seen from the facts, which have been proved that the petitioners after above compromise joined at Gurgaon in first week of September and worked there up to 25th October and thereafter stopped going to Gurgaon. The petitioners, however, made a claim before the Conciliation Officer Delhi that their services were illegally terminated. An industrial dispute in respect of petitioners was referred in following terms to the Labour Court:
Whether the services of Shri Vijay Kumar / Shri Raj Kumar 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
5. In their statement of claim the petitioners had taken the stand that they were serving in Delhi at D-1/2 Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, the management without any reason terminated the services of the petitioners in October, 1999. The petitioners thereafter, served a notice upon the management through union asking the management to take them back on service. There was no effect of this notice. The management did not pay the wages of October, 1999 as well as bonus and overtime. The management did not give reply to the notice nor gave them job.
6. The stand of the management on the other hand was that the petitioners after working at Gurgaon for about 1 ? month stopped coming on duty at Gurgaon and the management had written letters to the petitioners at their last known addresses, also sent telegrams to them requesting them to continue their duties at Gurgaon. The petitioners did not come to receive the salary of October, 1999. The respondent had never denied salary to the workmen, however since workmen did not come to the factory after last week of October, 1999 they did not collect their salary although the management was ready and willing to pay their due salary. There was no termination of services of the petitioners by the management.
7. After recording evidence of both the sides, Tribunal observed that the workmen had taken contradictory stand in statement of claim and in evidence. While in statement of claim workmen stated that they were working at D-1/2 Okhla Industrial Area unitl their services were terminated however, during evidence they admitted that they were working at Gurgaon and denial of service was at Gurgaon. The workmen had also taken the stand that no appointment letter was issued while the issuance of appointment letter was admitted by the workmen and letter was proved by evidence. In statement of claim nothing was stated about the agreement dated 18.8.1999 entered into between the management and union of workmen on closure of operations of respondent in Delhi and transfer of all the employees from Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II to Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon after the factory was shifted to Gurgaon. The workmen also concealed the fact that their services were liable to be transferred as per appointment letter. Noticing the contradictory stands taken by the workmen, Labour Court came to conclusion that the workmen were not entitled for any relief. The services of the workmen were not terminated. The Tribunal relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh, 1998 SSC (LandS) 1424 wherein Supreme Court held that even in labour matters where the claimant goes before a Court or Tribunal with uncleaned hands and takes contradictory stands, there is no substantial justice when the Court or Tribunal gives relief to the workman in such cases. Supreme Court observed that if the workmen have not approached the Court with clean hands, the Labour Court and High Court could not have turned a blind eye to the inconsistent stand taken by the workman. It is now settled law that a person who, approaches Court for enforcement of his legal rights must come to the Court with clean hands and disclose all facts to the Court. In this case, the workmen in their statements of claim stated all lies and their entire stand in the statement of claim was belied during the testimony and it was found that they had not come to the Court with clean hands.
8. I consider that a person who, does not come to the Court with clean hands, is not entitled for any relief. The learned Labour Court rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. I find no force in the writ petitions and both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
