SABHARWAL FOOD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SABHARWAL FOOD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY (LABOUR)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE management/petitioner, M/s Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. , has called into question the award passed by Sh. S. K. Sarvaria, presiding Officer Labour Court dated 15. 09. 2007, wherein, workman Sh. Digambar Singh Rawat, respondent No. 2 was found entitled to an amount of Rs. 39,650/- from the management/petitioner by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages.
(2.) ADUMBRATED in brief, the case of the workman/respondent No. 2 is as follows. He was working with the management since October 2000 as a driver. His last drawn wages were Rs. 5,860/- per month. He was not given appointment letter, yearly or casual leave, overtime etc. and on repeated demands, the management provided ESI and PF facilities to him in the year 2002. The workman was getting his house constructed in Burari, Delhi, and took leave from 05. 07. 2004 to 18. 07. 2004. He attend his duties from j 19. 07. 2004 to 21. 07. 2004. On 21. 07. 2004, the workman demanded advance from the management but the management got annoyed, misbehaved with him and asked him to give his resignation. The workman refused to tender his resignation. Consequently, the services of the workman were terminated illegally. The workman sent a demand notice dated 11. 09. 2004, which was replied by the management vide reply dated 20. 09. 2004. The workman challenged his above said termination on the grounds that no enquiry was held and his services were terminated in violation of Section 25f of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the workman he remained unemployed since the date of termination of his services. He prayed reinstatement with continuity of previous service and full back wages.
(3.) THE petitioner contested the claim of the workman/respondent No. 2 tooth and nail. According to it, the workman joined its services as Driver w. e. f. 25. 05. 2002 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4,000/- per month plus other benefits. The workman remained absent of his own accord and voluntarily stopped coming to duty since 22. 07. 2004 without sanction of the management. On the contrary, the petitioner / management sent a letter dated 11. 09. 2004 and show cause notice dated 05. 10. 2004, wherein, the workman was called upon to report for duty but he failed to do the needful. Respondent No. 27 workman used to report to duty in the factory situated at Sonepat. However, sometimes when there was factory work at Del he used to drive the vehicle in Delhi also. The respondent No. 2 / workman sometimes visited along with the Director at registered office at A-309, basement, Azad Pur, Delhi and also dropped one of the company directors to his residence at B-3/8, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. Again, the petitioner / management offered the job to the respondent No. 2/ workman before the conciliation Officer and asked him to report for duty vide letters dated 22. 11. 2004, 11. 01. 2005, 18. 03. 2005 and 12. 05. 2005 but the workman / respondent No. 2 refused to join the duty at Sonepat contending that he was serving in Delhi.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.