Delhi High Court
M/S Shiv Shakti Tractor ... vs Shri Ram Sharma on 31 January, 2020
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 31.01.2020
+ W.P.(C) 1200/2020
M/S SHIV SHAKTI TRACTOR CORPORATION ...... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Adv.
versus
SHRI RAM SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
CM APPL. 3989/2020 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off.
W.P.(C) 1200/2020 & CM APPL. 3988/2020
3. This petition impugns the award dated 31.05.2019 passed by the
learned Labour Court in LIR No. 405/2016 on the ground that: (i) the
Inquiry Report was not to be considered in the adjudication and (ii) the lump
sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- granted is on the higher side.
4. It is an admitted position that the respondent-workman was employed
by the petitioner w.e.f. 10.03.1986. He was working as a helper and his last
drawn salary was Rs. 9,500/- per month. The management had not provided
him any appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, pay-slip, annual
and casual leave, overtime allowance etc. He was asked to work for more
W.P.(C) 1200/2020
than 12 hours a day, but in default of legal facilities being provided to him.
It was alleged that upon the workman's request for providing him due
remuneration as per law, the management became inimical towards him and
started harassing him; payment of his salary was stopped; that his signatures
were taken on a blank paper and his services were terminated on 15.05.2013,
along with a threat by the management that he will be implicated in a false
case, if he ever came to the management again; and that management had
also got lodged a report with the police; that the management did not pay
him any wages from 01.04.2013 to 15.05.2013 i.e. the day when his services
were terminated. In this regard, he sent a legal demand notice dated
28.05.2013 to the management. He also sent a demand letter dated
22.05.2013. In the absence of any response, he approached the Conciliation
Officer, Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, where he prayed that
he be reinstated with full back wages.
5. It is admitted by the petitioner that the workman was indeed
employed with them but it is denied that his services had been terminated
without any reason. It is alleged that the workman had stolen some goods of
the management. The workman had reiterated his claim and sequence of
events before the Conciliation Officer. In the absence of any progress in the
matter, a reference was made to the learned Labour Court. The case of the
management was that an inquiry was being conducted by a person who was
first cousin of Mr. Ramesh Arora the Manager of the management. The
learned Labour Court had dismissed the said Inquiry Report for the reason
that he was related to the management. The Inquiry Officer did not even
summon the Stock Register of the company to ascertain the stock position of
the day when the company claimed that its goods had been stolen by the
W.P.(C) 1200/2020
workman. Not ascertaining the actual loss of goods would be a fundamental
flaw. It goes to the root of the allegation of theft. First it ought to have been
established, only then the theft would need to be identified.
6. The management ought to have established before the Inquiry Officer
that the goods did exist in the godown or the stocks of the company, which
were then misappropriated. The management claimed to have filed a police
complaint on 27.05.2013 apropos the theft. It was got converted into an
F.I.R. on 01.07.2013. It is another matter though that in the subsequent
criminal proceedings, the respondent-workman had been discharged by the
order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the Court of the learned M.M., with the
observation that: (i) from the material on record, the accused persons had
been arrested merely on the basis of the disclosure statement and (ii) the
investigating agency had failed to place on record any incriminating
evidence against the accused persons. Interestingly, if the theft had been
committed by the workman and was the reason for the termination of his
services, then the police complaint ought to have been filed earlier in time
and not after his removal from services. It was filed after he had sought
payment of wages from 01.04.2013 to 15.05.2013. The police complaint
appears to be an afterthought, only to justify the unwarranted illegal
termination from the services. The Inquiry Report was rightly rejected by
the learned Labour Court. The misconduct of the workman was never
proven. In the circumstances, his illegal termination was set aside. The
aforesaid contention of the learned counsel is untenable and is accordingly
rejected.
7. The Court would note that the learned Labour Court fixed a lump sum
amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the following reasons:-
W.P.(C) 1200/2020
"18. Issue no. 3: Relief, In the present case, since the
management has lost the confidence of the workman as the
management had lodged the FIR of theft against the workman,
therefore, reinstatement of the workman does not serve any
purpose because in such atmosphere, it is also not in the interest
of workman to work with the management. Considering the
length of the service that he was employed since 10.03.1986 and
his last drawn salary was Rs. 9,500/- per month, this court has
considered it fit to grant a lump sum amount of compensation of
Rs. 6,00,000/-. The compensation shall be in lieu of above said
benefit. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the
Respondent/Management within two months from the date this
Award becomes enforceable, failing which the management shall
also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from
the date of Award till the date of realization."
8. Evidently, the respondent-workman had not been paid wages from
16.05.1986 to 07.01.2000. The total amount for the aforesaid period of 13 ½
years, as per the admitted wages of Rs. 9,500/- per month could have been
awarded i.e. Rs. 9500/-x12x13 = Rs. 14,82,000/-. Instead, the learned
Labour Court has granted lump sum compensation of only Rs. 6,00,000/-. It
does not call for any interference.
9. There is no merit in the petition. It, alongwith pending application, is
accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JANUARY 31, 2020
kb
W.P.(C) 1200/2020
