Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:05.02.2022
08:23:51
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd February, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 12229/2019 & CM APPLs.6065-66/2022
M/S TIGER FORCE SECURITY SERVICES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Jain and Mr. Tanpreet
Gulati, Advocates.
versus
MR. UMENDER KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 19th January, 2019 in ID No. 7732/2016 titled Umender Kumar v. M/s Tiger Force Security Services passed by the ld. PO, Labour Court-V, Dwarka Courts/Delhi (hereinafter "Labour Court"). Vide the impugned order, Respondent/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") was granted reinstatement with full backwages along with continuity of service and consequential benefits. The impugned award being an ex parte award has been challenged before this Court.
3. Vide order dated 20th November, 2019, this Court had granted interim stay on the impugned award subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner/Management (hereinafter "Management") has deposited a sum of Rs.4,89,420/- which has been kept in an FDR. The same is lying in the account of the Registrar General.
4. Today, an application has been moved by the Workman for litigation expenses and during the course of hearing, submissions were made in the
W.P.(C) 12229/2019 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2022 08:23:51
main petition. The case of the Management is that the Workman was working as a security guard with the Management and he had left the employment to go back to his village out of his own volition. On the issue of non-appearance of the Management before the Labour Court, ld. Counsel submits that the counsel who was engaged by the Management met with an accident due to which he could not appear leading to the ex parte award being passed. Mr. Deepak Jain, ld. Counsel relies upon the reply filed by the Workman before the Labour Court wherein he clearly admitted that he was neither dismissed nor terminated by the Management but had gone back to his native village and that he did not return to re-join the service. Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel also submits that the Management is willing to take him back as a security guard.
5. Mr. Sumit Kumar, ld. Counsel, at this stage, was requested to contact the Workman and take instructions as to whether the Workman wishes to join back the Management. The Workman was also directed to join the proceedings virtually. The matter was passed over. However, after pass over, Mr. Sumit Kumar, ld. Counsel submits that he contacted the Workman but he unable to join the Court proceedings virtually as he is in his village in U.P. On the point of re-joining the services of the Management, he submits that the Workman has some apprehensions in re-joining the Petitioner/Management, however, he is agreeable to accepting a lump sum compensation in this matter.
6. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties. The Court has considered the matter. The statement made by the Workman before the Labour Court which is on record clearly has a categorical admission to the effect that the Workman had not been dismissed or terminated but he had gone to his
W.P.(C) 12229/2019 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2022 08:23:51
native village and he did not return to service. The same reads as under:
"मैससस: टाईगर फोसस ससक्योटी सर्वससज े र्वषय: प्रबन्धक के जबाब दावे के उत्तर में | महोदय, निवेदि यह है कक प्रबंधको िे अपिे जबाब दावे में जो भी तथ्य ददए है असत्य एवं बेबनु ियाद ददए है | सच्चाई यह है कक उन्होंिे कमसचारी को िौकरी से िहीं हटाया कमसचारी अपिे गााँव गया था उसके बाद लोट कर वार्पस ड्यूटी ज्योि करिे िहीं आया| सच्चाई यह है कक कमसचारी िे उिकी संस्थाि ददिांक 06/01/2008 से बतौर ससक्योटी गार्स के पद पर से अंनतम वेति 8800/- रू. प्रनतमाह पर कायसररत था प्रबंधक िे कमसचारी को श्रम कािूिों के अंतगसत - लीव बक ु , ओवर टाईम कार्स, एवं वेति बढ़ोतरी, संस्थाि की बैलेंस शीट के मत ु ाबबक बोिस, एवं कैजअ ु ली राष्ट्रीय त्यौहारी अवकाश, एवं सालािा अवकाश, कमसचारी को िहीं ददए था| जब भी कमसचारी िे प्रबंधक से कािि ू ी सुर्वधाओं की मााँग की तो प्रबंधकों िे कहा कक काम करते रहों हम कािूिी सुर्वधाएाँ लागू कर दें गे| कमसचारी के बार बार मौखिक रूप से मााँग करिे पर प्रबंधकों िे कािूिी सुर्वधाएाँ लागू िहीं की िाही मेरी र्पछली वैधानिक सर्ु वधाओं की धिराशी कमसचारी को भग ु ताि की हैं तथा बबिा कारण बताएं बबिा कमसचारी को सलखित िोदटस ददए बबिा ददिांक 01/10/2010 को िौकरी से हटा ददया| तथा कमसचारी का अर्जसत वेति ददिांक 01/08/2010 से 30/09/2010 तक का भुगताि िहीं
W.P.(C) 12229/2019 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2022 08:23:51
ककया प्रबंधकों से बार-बार मौखिक रूप से िौकरी की मााँग की लेककि प्रबंधकों िे श्रसमक से र्वरोधी रवैया अपिा कर कमसचारी की मााँग को ठुकरा ददया|"
7. His stand is that he was denied various statutory increments, bonus, etc., by the Management. Thereafter, the Workman was finally terminated by the Management on 1st October, 2010 without any legal notice being issued.
8. Considering the fact that the impugned award is an ex parte award as also the fact that the Management is now willing to take back the Workman, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if a lump sum compensation is awarded to the Workman. In the present case the Workman joined the Management on 7th January, 2008 and the date of termination is 1st October, 2010. Thus, he has worked for a period of more than two and a half years. His last drawn salary was Rs.8,800/-. The termination having taken place in 2010, the claim was filed by the Workman only in April, 2015 after a lapse of almost 5 years. Thus, the grant of backwages for the delayed period of five years would be completely unsustainable in the opinion of this Court. In the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the following directions are issued:
i) The Workman shall be paid a lump sum compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.1,50,000/-. In addition, the interest which has accrued on the total amount lying deposited in Court shall be released in favour of the Workman after deducting the TDS as applicable. The said amount shall be credited by the Cash Branch of the Registry of this Court directly into the bank account of the Workman whose mobile number is [M:9411496630]. Alternatively, if
W.P.(C) 12229/2019 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2022 08:23:51
the Workman does not have a back account a demand draft shall be prepared in his own name and he shall come personally along with his counsel who shall identify him to collect the said demand draft. After deducting, Rs.1,50,000/- from the deposited amount, the remaining amount deposited with this Court shall be released back to the Management. This payment shall be effected within six weeks. If the workman does not collect the amount for his own reasons, after the period of six weeks, the amount to be refunded to the Management shall be refunded. The amount payable to the workman shall be retained in the account of the Registrar General, in interest bearing mode.
ii) If the Workman is willing to join the Management, he shall be permitted to do so and in that case the Management shall ensure that he shall be fairly treated like other employees and shall be employed on the same terms as other employees rendering similar services. If the Workman wishes to join the services of the Management, he shall contact Col. K.K. Nanda [M:9811115954], who is the HR official Authorised Representative of the Petitioner/Management.
9. With these observations the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of.
10. Accordingly, the date already fixed i.e., 7th April, 2022 before the Registrar stands cancelled.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE FEBRUARY 3, 2022 dj/sk
W.P.(C) 12229/2019 Page 5 of 5
