K K Chakraborty vs M/S. Alankit Assignments Ltd.
2017 Latest Caselaw 5161 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         Judgment reserved on : 06th September, 2017
                              Date of decision : 18th September, 2017

W.P.(C) 7859/2017
K K CHAKRABORTY                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through       Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate

                          versus

M/S. ALANKIT ASSIGNMENTS LTD.                       ..... Respondent
                          Through       Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
                               JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned

Award dated 28.01.2017 in I.D. No. 5252/2016 whereby vide the

impugned Award dated 28.01.2017, the reference sent by the

Government of NCT of Delhi vide Order No.

F.24(39)/Lab./CD/14/217 dated 19.06.2014 to the effect that : -

"Whether the services of Sh. K.K. Chakraborty S/o Sh. H.L. Chakraborty 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?"

was answered to the effect that Sh. K.K. Chakkraborty i.e. the

petitioner herein was a workman falling within Section 2(s) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but that he had himself resigned from

the job of a Liaison Officer with the respondent M/s. Alankit

Assignments Limited voluntarily on 26.07.2013 and that his services

had not been terminated by the respondent / the management and that

thus the workman / the petitioner herein was not entitled to any relief

in as much as the respondent / the management has not terminated his

services.

2. A bare perusal of the impugned Award indicates that the case of

the claimant i.e. the petitioner herein was to the effect that he had

joined the management / the respondent herein in the year 1999 as a

General Worker on a salary of Rs.3,500/- per month and performed

his duties on the directions of the management / respondent herein and

time to time promotion was given with increments in salary and

allowance apart from perks and allowances and Rs.1,000/- as

conveyance charges but he was not paid his earned wages from

January, 2013 onwards but despite the same he continued his duties up

to 26.07.2013.

3. It has further been observed vide the impugned Award that as

per the claim of the claimant / the petitioner wherefrom he demanded

earned wages from January, 2013 onwards, the matter was postponed

on one pretext and other and on 26.07.2013, the Managing Director

Sh. Alok Kumar Aggarwal and other staff detained him forcibly in a

room and compelled to write his resignation letter under their dictation

and in this manner his services had been terminated. Inter alia it was

the contention of the claimant / the petitioner herein before the Pilot

Court/POLC-XVII that the management / the respondent herein had

not issued any appointment letter and had also not paid him bonus, PF,

gratuity, leave encashment and other allowances. According, to the

claimant / the petitioner herein, he visited the management / the

respondent herein several times after 26.07.2013 to join back but he

had been threatened that if he was seen again in that area then he

would be got arrested in a false criminal case and since the date of his

termination, he is jobless.

4. According to the claimant / the petitioner herein, a demand

notice was sent on 19.09.2013, which went unreplied and the case

filed before the Conciliation Officer, also remained unsettled.

5. The management / the respondent herein submitted before the

Pilot Court/POLC-XVII inter alia to the effect that the last

designation of the claimant / the petitioner herein was of a Liaison

Officer and that he had been working in a supervisory capacity and

hence, he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he had abandoned the job on

26.07.2013 himself and had not turned back despite several follow

ups.

6. Issues were framed on 09.04.2015 by the learned Pilot Court /

POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to the effect : -

"1. Whether the claimant being in supervisory cadre, is not a workman? OPM

2. Whether the claimant himself abandoned his job on 26.07.2013? OPM.

3. As per terms of reference.

4. Relief"

in relation to which the claimant / the respondent herein has

tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A and had relied upon

documents were detailed in para 5 of the impugned Award, are to the

effect : -

1. Ex.WW1/1 is reference dated 16.05.2014.

2. Ex.WW1/2 is the admit card of the workman.

3. Ex.WW1/3 is the pay slip for the month of February, 2004.

4. Ex.WW1/4 is the pay slip for the month of July, 2002.

5. Ex.WW1/5 is the pay slip for the month of April, 2004.

6. Ex.WW1/6 is the pay slip for the month of May, 2004.

7. Ex.WW1/7 is the pay slip for the month of June, 2012.

8. Ex.WW1/8 is the pay slip for the month of July, 2012.

9. Ex.WW1/9 is the pay slip for the month of Aug, 2012.

10. Ex.WW1/10 is the pay slip for the month of Sept, 2012.

11. Ex.WW1/11 is intimation u/s 143 of Income Tax Act.

12. Mark W1 is photocopy of reference order dated 16.09.14.

13. Mark W2 is photocopy of reference order dated 19.06.14.

14. Mark W3 is photocopy of letter from DLC office dated 16.12.14.

15. Mark W4 is photocopy of the POLC-V order dated 10.07.14.

16. Mark W5 is photocopy of the POLC-V order dated 30.10.14 & 13.11.14.

17. Mark W6 is photocopy of the POLC-V order dated 18.12.14.

18. Mark W7 is photocopy of statement of workman dated 18.12.14 before POLC-V.

19. Mark W8 is photocopy of Adhar Card of the workman.

20. Mark W9 is photocopy of workman's legal notice dated 18.09.13.

7. The management / the respondent herein had also examined its

Authorized Representative Sh. Shantilal Chaplot as MW1, who apart

from deposing in relation to the contents of the written statement also

stated that the claimant / the respondent herein used to collect the

amount from the Account Department for incurring expenses on

Liaison work but had stopped submitting the accounts of incurred

expenses for the year 2012-2013 but kept on collecting advance

amount from the management / the respondent herein and that the

claimant / the petitioner herein had not submitted accounts of expenses

of Rs.1,23,297/- for which a reminder letter dated 28.12.2012 marked

as Mark-M1 had been sent to him in which he had intimated that if he

failed to furnish the amount, the outstanding amount shall be deducted

from his salary but he had not rendered the account and that the

management / the respondent herein had started deducting some

amount from his salary and the management / the respondent herein

placed reliance upon the statement of account Ex.MW1/2. It was

further submitted by the management / the respondent herein that the

claimant / the petitioner herein had stopped coming to the

management / the respondent herein from 26.07.2013 onwards and till

that date, the amount of Rs.5,290/- had remained outstanding towards

him and thus the same could not be recovered from his salary and was

thus waived off.

8. Vide the impugned Award, issue no. 1 was decided in favour of

the claimant / the petitioner herein holding to the effect that the

claimant / the petitioner herein was a workman within the meaning of

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in as much as he had

done all sundry work for the management / the respondent herein. The

said findings had not been assailed by the management / the

respondent herein and have attained finality.

9. Issue no. 2 was decided by the learned Pilot Court/POLC-XVII

against the claimant / the petitioner herein observing inter alia to the

effect that after analysis of the statement of the account Ex.MW1/2

and other documentary evidence led that after adjusting the salary for

two months i.e. January, 2013 and February, 2013, the outstanding

amount towards the claimant / the petitioner herein was still

Rs.85,145/- and Rs.80,000/- had been approximately adjusted towards

his salary from March, 2013 to July, 2013 as indicated in Ex.MW1/2

and after deduction of the said amount, a sum of Rs.5,290/- was still

outstanding against him. It has further been observed by the learned

Pilot Court/POLC-XVII that the management / the respondent herein

had rightly deducted outstanding money from the salary of the

claimant / the petitioner herein and that the claimant (i.e. the petitioner

herein) was not entitled to get salary from January, 2013 to July, 2013

and thus the claimant / the petitioner had no right to ask the

management / the respondent herein to pay him earned wages from

January, 2013 to July, 2013. The learned Pilot Court/POLC-XVII had

also held that the management / the respondent herein was not bound

to pay the salary for that period and that there was no occasion for the

management / the respondent herein to pressurize the claimant / the

respondent herein to write a resignation letter. Inter alia it was

observed by the learned Pilot Court to the effect that the claimant / the

petitioner herein had not examined any witness or tendered any

document to prove that his resignation had been obtained forcibly by

the management / the respondent herein.

10. It was observed vide the impugned Award to the effect that the

claimant / the petitioner had relied upon the circumstantial evidence of

non-payment of earned wages from January, 2013 to July, 2013 as the

motive for the management / the respondent herein to extract his

resignation and Ex.MW1/2, the statement of account proved that he

was not entitled to get wages for that period and that the claimant / the

petitioner herein has thus failed to prove the circumstances alleged and

accordingly the learned Pilot Court/POLC-XVII decided issue no. 2

against the claimant / the petitioner herein and in favour of the

management / the respondent herein i.e. to the effect that the claimant

/ the petitioner herein had himself abandoned his job his job on

26.07.2013.

11. Consequently, issue no. 3 was also decided against the claimant

/ the petitioner herein and in favour of the management / the

respondent herein to the effect that it was the claimant / the petitioner

himself who had resigned from the job voluntarily on 26.07.2013 and

there was no occasion for the management / the respondent herein to

terminate his service.

12. During the course of the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner, it has been submitted that the learned Pilot Court had come

to the findings that the claimant / the petitioner herein had himself

resigned from the job voluntarily, which findings were erroneous and

was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Pilot

Court / POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi had failed to

appreciate that the oral termination of the services of the claimant / the

petitioner herein by not permitting him to join after 26.07.2013 was

illegal and unjustified and without the compliance of the Section 25(f)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further submitted on

behalf of the petitioner that the learned Pilot Court / POLC-XVII,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi had observed that none of the parties had

placed on record any resignation letter of the claimant / the petitioner

herein but it was held that the claimant / the petitioner herein had

voluntarily resigned from the services of the management / the

respondent herein.

13. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

learned Pilot Court / POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi had

failed to appreciate that the management / the respondent herein had

alleged that the claimant / the petitioner had demanded earned wages

from January, 2013 onwards, however, the matter was postponed on

one pretext and other and on 26.07.2013, the Managing Director Sh.

Alok Kumar Aggarwal and other staff detained him forcibly in a room

and compelled to write his resignation letter under their dictation and

in this manner his services had been terminated. Thereafter, the

claimant / the petitioner herein, visited the management / the

respondent herein several times after 26.07.2013 to join back but he

had been threatened that if he was seen again in that area then he

would be got arrested in a false criminal case and since the date of his

termination, he is jobless. Thereafter, the claimant / the petitioner

herein, a demand notice was sent on 19.09.2013, which went unreplied

and the matter was filed before the Conciliation Officer, also remained

unsettled and hence, the management / the respondent herein had itself

illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the claimant / the

petitioner herein.

14. During the course of the initial submissions made on behalf

of the claimant / the petitioner herein, in reply to a specific Court

query, counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was no

document available with the claimant / the petitioner to show that

there was any resignation letter signed by the claimant / the

petitioner herein and that it was stated that infact, the claimant /

the petitioner had been confined forcibly in a room by the

Managing Director Sh. Alok Kumar Aggarwal and other staff had

detained him and compelled him to write his resignation letter

under their dictation and in this manner his services had been

terminated on 26.07.2013 when he demanded earned wages from

January, 2013 to July, 2013 and thus under the threat and

pressure of the management / the respondent herein, he had given

the letter as dictated by the management.

15. It is thus apparently clear that even according to the

petitioner, the resignation letter had been written by him as

detailed in para no. 6 of the petition.

16. In reply to a specific Court query during the hearing of the

present petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

no criminal complaint was lodged by the petitioner against his

alleged forcible detention and threats meted out to him by the

management / the respondent herein. The same itself detracts

from the veracity of the averments made in the petition.

17. The observations in the impugned Award are based on the

analysis of the evidence led before the learned Pilot Court / POLC-

XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and as laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen

Workers' Union and Anr, AIR 2000 SC 1508 and in as laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Panda vs Steel Authority Of

India, 1994 SCC (5) 304 that the Labour Court and Industrial

Tribunal are the competent fora to adjudicate such disputes on the

basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them and

whilst exercising its jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily re-

appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. The

impugned Award has taken into account the entire evidence led by

either side and there is no infirmity in the analysis of the evidence by

the learned Pilot Court / POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in

I.D. No. 5252/2016.

18. Thus, it is held that there is no infirmity in the impugned Award

dated 28.01.2017 in I.D. No. 5252/2016 of the learned Pilot Court /

POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and it is apparent that the

evidence on record establishes that the claimant / the petitioner herein

himself resigned from his job voluntarily on 26.07.2013 and he has

rightly been held not entitled to any relief by the learned Pilot Court /

POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and that thus

consequentially his services have not been terminated by the

management at all and consequently, the petitioner / the claimant is

not entitled to any relief.

19. The W.P.(C) 7859/2017 is dismissed.

ANU MALHOTRA, J

SEPTEMBER 18th, 2017/mk