RAM BAHADUR CHAUBEY Vs. NATHUS SWEETS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the order dated 06.06.2015 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No. 28/08, dismissing the petitioner's claim for payment of statutory dues.

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that he was working with the respondent M/S Nathu's Sweets at Bengali Market, New Delhi for the last 27 years i.e. from 1980 to 1994 as a waiter and on same conditions and with continuity of service with M/S Nathu's Sweets at New Friends Colony, New Delhi from 1995 to 2007. He worked without break in service most sincerely and diligently and his last drawn salary was Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas the rate of minimum wages for the category of workman like the petitioner was Rs.3,682/- per month in 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent had not been keeping records of duty hours, leaves, weekly-off days, appointment letter, pay slip and it was paying the petitioner wages below the applicable rates of minimum wages. Furthermore, it was making the workmen work for 12 hours a day without paying him any overtime wages. The petitioner was working against the need and regular vacancy of a waiter. He further contends that it was mandatory for the respondent to maintain records of appointment letters, wages, over time, bonus, leaves & holidays etc. under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 and under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for workers like the petitioner but the respondent had consistently defaulted in its statutory obligations. Thus, by flouting statutory provisions it was indulging in unfair labour practice.

(3.) The impugned order has found that two issues were raised in the case: (i) whether the claimant left the management on his own in full and final settlement of all his claims; and (ii) whether his services were illegally terminated. The onus of proving that the workman had walked away with full and final settlement, as allegedly entered into between the parties on 12.10.2007, lay with the management. The workman had acknowledged that the signature on the document was his. However, in the same breath, the learned counsel for the workman also submits that the signature was obtained under duress because of the police complaint; that he was intimidated by the management as well as by the police officials. There was a quarrel between other workmen, about which the petitioner took a fair stand apropos the assault of the management on the workman, but he was without basis sought to be embroiled in the affair. He felt cheated and aggrieved by the actions of the management, especially after having rendered services for more than 27 years and then being sought to be dismissed by the alleged, full and final settlement with a meager amount of Rs. 10,500/-. The impugned order noted that apart from simply telling that the said settlement was forceful, the workman has not complained to any authority after such coercion being applied to him. The Court would note that in their reply to the petitioner's claim, the respondent has admitted inter alia "...It is also submitted that the claimant was working as daily wager intermittently with the management and his wages were paid in cash."