Delhi District Court
Rajveer Singh vs M/S Pro Interactive Services India Pvt. … on 3 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LIR No. 9308/16
CNR No. DLCT13-011714-2016
In the matter of:
Sh. Rajveer Singh
S/o Sh. Rameshwar,
R/o H. No. RZ-75D/2,
Laxmi Vihar, Gali No. 5,
Nangloi, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
Mobile No. 9971211980 .....Workman
Details of one immediate family member of the workman:
Name: Smt. Usha Devi (Wife)
Mobile No. : 9520927757
Details of Authorized Representatives of the workman:
Name : Mr. Sunil Kumar
Mobile : 9810569681
E-mail ID : [email protected].
VERSUS
M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
31-32, Begum Pur Park, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017. .....Management
Details of the Authorized Representative of the management:
Name : Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate and Mr. Shyam Bairagi
Mobile no. 8447465059
E mail ID: [email protected] and
[email protected]
Date of receipt of reference : 01.10.2016
Date of Award : 03.01.2025
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 1 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:05:24 +0530
AWARD
1. A reference No. F.24(422)/Lab./SD/2016/20295 dated
08.09.2016 was received from the Office of Dy. Labour
Commissioner (South District), Labour Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi under section 10(1)(c) and
12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding an
industrial dispute between Sh. Rajveer Singh (hereinafter
referred to as 'workman') and the management of M/s PRO
Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as 'management'), with the following terms of reference:
"Whether Sh. Rajveer Singh S/o Sh.
Rameshwar, age-27 years (Mobile No.
9971211980), resigned at his own; and if not,
whether his services 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?"
Facts as per the statement of claim
2. In brief, as per the statement of claim, the workman was
working with the management since three years as a guard
with his last drawn salary being ₹12,000/- per month to the
satisfaction of the management, but during his service tenure,
he was denied legal facilities by the management and when he
repeatedly demanded the same, the management got annoyed
and terminated his services with effect from 05.01.2016.
3. It has been further asserted that the workman has worked with
the management for more than 240 days in each calendar
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 2 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:05:30 +0530
month and that the management did not pay the wages of
December 2015 to the workman who is unemployed since the
termination of his services on 05.01.2016, and that he and his
family are at the verge of starvation facing financial
hardships.
4. It has also been asserted that the workman was terminated by
refusal of duties without any reason, the work which he was
performing is still continuing, no seniority list was displayed
and no notice was given nor any notice pay was offered or
paid to the workman at the time of termination of his services
and hence his termination upon demand of legal facilities
amounted to unfair labour practice and was also in violation
of section 25F, 25G, 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, read
with Rule 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957.
5. It has also been asserted that the legal demand notice dated
29.02.2016 had been served upon the management, which did
not reply to the same, and even the conciliation proceedings
initiated by the workman failed, hence the present claim
seeking reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages with all consequential benefits.
Facts as per the written statement/reply
6. In its written statement/reply, the management raised
preliminary objection as to the workman having abandoned
the services of the management by tendering his resignation
and hence the provisions of section 25F, 25N etc. of the
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 3 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:05:36 +0530
Industrial Disputes Act not being applicable. It has also been
stated that the workman had not worked with the management
continuously for more than 240 days in each calendar of
months.
7. It has been further asserted that without any information and
prior notice to the management, the workman had remained
unauthorisedly absent from his duties w.e.f. 26.07.2015 to
20.08.2015, and that he was informed about his unauthorised
absence by the management on 20.08.2015, by writing letter
on his residence, whereafter without any prior information,
the workman visited the office of the management on
02.12.2015 informing that due to some serious family issues,
he was unable to continue his services, and out of his own
wish and volition, he tendered his resignation which was duly
accepted by the management. It has also been asserted that
after the tendering of the resignation, the workman also
deposited his uniform and I-card which were lying with the
management and even though the management had repeatedly
called upon the workman to receive his dues after acceptance
of his resignation, the workman did not do so and filed a
frivolous claim.
8. On merits, the period of employment, designation and last
drawn salary of the workman have not been disputed by the
management which has stated the same to be matter of record.
It has been asserted that the conduct of the workman was
unbecoming as he used to report late for duties, remained
absent from duties on many occasions, and was found
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 4 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:05:42 +0530
sleeping during duty hours, but the management took lenient
view upon the workman tendering apology letters and the
management had also issued warning letters on some
occasions. The contents of the preliminary objections have
been reiterated and all other averments made in the statement
of claim have been denied.
Facts as per Rejoinder
9. In his rejoinder, the workman has asserted that the
management had taken his signatures on blank papers and
deposited his uniform and identity card forcibly, and that he
had never tendered his resignation at any point of time. All
other averments made in the reply/ written statement has been
denied and the contents of the statement of claim have been
reiterated.
Issues
10.The following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor on
07.08.2018:
“i) Whether the services of the workman has been
terminated illegally? OPW
ii) Whether the workman himself abandoned his job by
tendering his resignation on 02.12.2015? OPM
iii) Relief.”
Workman Evidence
11.To prove its case, the workman tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit i.e. Ex WW1/A and relied upon the following
documents i.e.
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Digitally
signed by Page No. 5 of 15
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.03
17:05:46
+0530
Sl.No Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Demand letter dated Ex. WW1/1
29.02.2016
2. Copy of claim filed before the Ex. WW1/3
Conciliation Officer
3. Copy of complaint filed Ex. WW1/4
before the Conciliation
Officer
4. Copy of his ID card Mark X
The document Ex WW1/2 i.e. postal receipt was de-exhibited
as the same was not placed on record.
12.The workman was duly cross-examined on behalf of the
management wherein inter-alia, he produced prescriptions
dated 13.04.2018 and 14.05.2022 i.e. Ex. WW1/5 and
Ex.WW1/6. He also produced the copy of his bank statement
of SBI from 18.12.2014 to 22.06.2021 i.e. Ex WW1/M-1,
copy of passbook w.e.f. September 2021 to 27.02.2022 i.e. Ex
WW1/M2 and copy of bank statement of Canara Bank w.e.f.
01.05.2021 to 18.06.2022 i.e. Ex WW1/M3 and resignation
letter i.e. Mark M1 was also put to him.
Management Evidence
13.The management examined MW1 Mr. Shyam Sunder Bairagi,
General Manager (HR) who tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit i.e. Ex. MW1/A. He also relied upon the following
documents-
S.No Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of warning letter dated Mark-MW1/1
06.08.2014
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Digitally
signed by
Page No. 6 of 15
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.03
17:05:52
+0530
2. Copy of warning letter dated Mark-MW1/2
08.09.2014
3. Copy of warning letter dated Mark-MW1/3
08.12.2014
4. Copy of warning letter dated Mark-MW1/4
20.07.2015
5. Copy of apology letter Mark-MW1/5
regarding sleeping on duty
hours on 05.08.2014
6. Copy of apology letter dated Mark-MW1/6
08.09.2014
7. Copy of apology letter dated Mark-MW1/7
20.07.2015
8. Copy of resignation letter Mark-MW1/8
9. Copy of identity card Mark-MW1/9
10. Board resolution dated Ex. MW1/10
11.12.2023
He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workman.
Final Arguments
14.Final arguments were then advanced by the Ld. Authorized
Representatives of the parties which have been carefully
considered along with the evidence on record and after careful
consideration of the same, the issue wise findings are as
under:
Issue no. i) Whether the services of the workman has
been terminated illegally? OPW
15.The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. As per the
statement of claim, the workman has asserted that the
management had denied him the benefit of legal facilities and
was annoyed by his legitimate demands for legal facilities due
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 7 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:05:56 +0530
to which his services were terminated by the management
with effect from 05.01.2016 orally, without any reason and
without paying earned wages for December 2015.
16.Hence, it was for the workman to prove not only the factum of
termination of his services by the management on 05.01.2016
but also the illegality thereof and to discharge the onus, the
workman has examined only himself and tendered his
evidence affidavit i.e. Ex. WW1/A on similar lines as his
statement of claim.
17.However, though the factum of the workman having been
their employee has not been disputed by the management, but,
they have not admitted the factum of the workman having
worked with them till 05.01.2016. Rather, as per the
testimony of MW1, the workman had tendered his resignation
on 02.12.2015 after remaining unauthorisedly absent from
26.07.2015 to 20.08.2015, which was duly accepted by the
management. Hence, as per the stand of the management,
with the resignation dated 02.12.2015 of the workman having
been accepted, there was no occasion for the workman to have
worked with the management till 05.01.2016.
18.In view of the divergent stands taken by the parties, to
discharge the onus cast upon him in respect of issue no. (i), it
was for the workman to prove that he had in fact worked with
the management till 05.01.2016 and that his services were
terminated by the management on 05.01.2016.
LIR No. 9308/16 POOJA
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 8 of 15
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:06:01 +0530
19.However, for reasons best known to him, the workman has
relied solely upon his self serving oral testimony in Ex
WW1/A to discharge the said onus and has not led any
documentary evidence to prove the factum of him having so
worked with the management.
20.For reasons best known to him, the workman neither took any
steps to seek production of any documents from the
management to prove that he had in fact worked with them till
05.01.2016 nor he has examined any of his co-workers
regarding the same. Despite having testified to the effect that
his salary for December 2015 had been withheld by the
management, the workman took no steps to prove the factum
of payment of any salary to him by the management till
November 2015 either. The workman did even not seek
production of any attendance record or even payment of
wages/ salary record to substantiate his self serving oral
testimony as to having worked with the management till
05.01.2016. Thus, no evidence has been brought on record by
the workman to show that he was working with the
management beyond July – August 2015, i.e. the period
beyond which the management has admitted that the
workman had worked with them.
21.Hence, the only evidence led by the workman to prove his
employment with the management till 05.01.2016 as well as
termination of services on 01.02.2016 is his sole self-serving
oral testimony. But, he has himself rendered such testimony as
un-creditworthy since during his cross examination, the
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 9 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:06:06 +0530
workman has testified that he did not know what was written
in his affidavit i.e. Ex. WW1/A which adversely affects the
credibility of his oral testimony.
22.The fact that the workman had initially testified in his cross-
examination that he could not say anything about the legal
facilities which had been denied to him and then during his
further cross-examination conducted on a subsequent date, he
testified that the management was not providing legal
facilities like weekly off, PF, bonus, and other legal facilities,
further undermines the credibility of his self serving oral
testimony as the source of sudden awareness after initial
denial of knowledge remains unexplained.
23.It is further noted that though the workman has testified as to
his services having been terminated by the management orally
on 05.01.2016, he has not furnished any details as to by whom
such termination was effected and hence his self serving oral
testimony in this respect is also vague.
24.The fact that during the cross-examination of MW1, a
suggestion was put to him on behalf of the workman as to the
workman having worked with the management only till
28.08.2015 further discredits the claim of the workman as to
him having worked with the management till 05.01.2016 and
also renders the claim of the workman as to his services
having been terminated by the management as improbable.
25.No other evidence has been brought on record by the
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 10 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA
AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:06:11 +0530
workman to prove the very factum of him having worked with
the management till 05.01.2016 or the factum of termination
of his services by the management on 05.01.2016 even on the
scale of preponderance of probabilities, hence, it is held that
the workman has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him
and this issue is decided against the workman and in favour of
the management.
Issue no. ii) Whether the workman himself abandoned
his job by tendering his resignation on 02.12.2015?
OPM
26.The onus to prove this issue was on the management. MW1
Mr. Shyam Sundar has testified in his evidence affidavit i.e.
Ex. MW1/A to the effect that on 02.12.2015, the workman
had visited the management informing them that due to some
serious family issues, he was unable to continue his services
with the management and had tendered his resignation on his
own wish and volition, which was duly accepted by the
management, and after tendering his resignation, the workman
also deposited his uniform and I-card with the management.
He has also relied upon the resignation letter i.e. Mark
MW1/8 (also marked as Mark M1).
27.However, the factum of execution of the resignation letter i.e.
Mark MW1/8 (also marked as Mark M1) has not been
admitted by the workman, since in his cross examination, the
workman has categorically denied that he had voluntarily
resigned from the services of the management on 02.12.2015
and he has also denied his signatures on the resignation letter
i.e. Mark 1.
LIR No. 9308/16
POOJA
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 11 of 15
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:06:16 +0530
28.With there being no admission of the workman in respect of
execution of the resignation letter Mark MW1/8, it was for the
management to prove the same. However, for reasons best
known to them, the management neither produced the original
letter nor took any steps to prove the signatures of the
workman on Mark MW1/8 to be those of the workman. The
management did not even produce the person who had
purportedly accepted the resignation letter to prove the
execution thereof, there by rendering such letter unproved.
29.During the course of final arguments, Ld. AR for the
management vehemently argued that during the cross
examination of MW1, the AR for the workman had himself
put a suggestion to the management witness that the
management had taken the signatures of workman on his
resignation letter, which itself proved that the workman was
not disputing his signatures on the same. However, the
argument as raised is devoid of merits since prior to the
suggestion under consideration, there is another specific
suggestion which had been put to the management witness as
to the resignation letter dated 02.12.2015 not bearing the
signatures of the workman. Hence, the second suggestion
cannot be read in isolation and merely on the basis of a
suggestion being put to the management witness by the AR of
the workman, the execution of the resignation letter i.e. Mark
MW1/8 by the workman does not stand proved considering
that even the original letter was not produced by the
management.
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 12 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:06:22 +0530
30.Be that as it may, even though the execution of the resignation
letter remains unproved, it is duly noted that the testimony of
MW1 as to the workman having deposited his uniform and
Identity card after tendering his resignation has remained un-
rebutted and even in his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted the factum of return of his security uniform to the
management through his uncle, though he has asserted the
same to have been returned on a false pretext.
31.Despite the same, for reasons, best known to the workman, he
did not examine any such uncle to corroborate his version as
to the management having taken the uniform on some false
pretext, rather, his testimony as to the uniform having been
deposited or taken by the management on some pretext is
contrary to his stand taken in the rejoinder as to the same
having been taken forcefully, which further renders his
version improbable and lends some credence to the version of
the management, though not sufficient on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities to prove execution of the
resignation letter.
32.Thus, in the absence of any admission of the workman
regarding execution of Mark MW1/8 (also marked as Mark
M1), and the failure of the management to lead any positive
evidence to prove the same, the factum of the workman
himself having abandoned his job by tendering his resignation
on 02.12.2015 remains unproved and this issue is accordingly
decided against the management.
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 13 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:06:27 +0530
33.At this stage, it is also noted that in the present case, though
the workman has relied upon the demand letter i.e. Ex
WW1/1, he has not filed any postal receipt in respect of
having sent it to the management and the factum of receipt of
any demand notice has not even been admitted by the
management either in their pleadings or even during the
evidence of the MW1. Hence, the workman has failed to
prove that he had sent any demand letter to the management
prior to filing this claim.
34.The absence of issuance of any demand letter by the workman
to the management asserting illegal termination and seeking
reinstatement prior to institution of this claim indicates that
the management had no occasion to deny such assertion or
refuse the demand of the workman, in the absence whereof,
industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k)
Industrial Disputes Act cannot be said to have come into
existence for the dispute or difference between the
management and the workman could have arisen only if some
assertion had been made by one party and denied by another
or some demand had been raised by one party which was
denied by the other, but that is not so in this case.
35.It is further noted that there is also nothing on record to
indicate that even any oral demand was made by the workman
to the management against his alleged termination or seeking
reinstatement as the entire pleadings as well as the evidence
of the workman is conspicuously silent as to him ever having
LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 14 of 15
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.03
17:06:33 +0530
approached the management seeking reinstatement. The
absence of such demand also negates the existence of any
dispute or difference within the meaning of industrial dispute
and thus renders the present claim not maintainable.
Issue no. (iii) Relief
36.In view of the above discussion and findings on issue no. (i)
and (ii), it is held that the workman has failed to prove that his
services have been terminated by the management and hence,
the illegally and/ or unjustifiably of such termination does not
arise.
37.The reference is answered as under:
“The claim of the workman Rajveer Singh S/o. Sh
Rameshwar is not maintainable, and he has failed to
prove that his services have been terminated illegally
and/or unjustifiably by the management. Hence, he is
not entitled to any relief and no directions are
necessary in this regard.”
38.Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC and
another copy be sent to the concerned department through
proper channels as per rules.
39.File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
today on 03rd January 2025 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.03
17:06:39
+0530(Pooja Aggarwal)
Presiding Officer Labour Court -01
Rouse Avenue District Court Complex
New Delhi (sy)LIR No. 9308/16
Rajveer Singh Vs. M/s PRO Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 15 of 15
[ad_1]
Source link