1. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

Filed on : 03/01/16
Registered on : 03/01/16
Decided on : 25/07/19
Period : : 3Yrs/4Months/24D

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FIRST LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR.
(Presided over by : Smt. V. O. Patil)

COMPLAINT (ULP) No : 25/2016

(CNR No : MHLC31-000136-2016) Exh. O-3.

COMPLAINANT : Ramsundar S/o Loknath Tiwari,

Aged about 40 years, Occu. Nil
R/o Plot No. 23, Shrinagar Ward No. 20,
Mankapur, Nagpur – 440 013.

Versus
RESPONDENT : The Manager,
S.G.S. (India) Ltd.
Through Branch Administrator,
S.G.S.(India) Pvt. Ltd.R-12, First Floor,
Laxminagar, Nagpur – 440 022.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES :- Adv. Smt. J. S. Kalbande for Complainant.

Adv. K. A. patil for Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 25/07/2019)

The complainant has filed the present complaint under

section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU & PULP Act' for
short).
 2. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

2. In short, the case of the complainant is as under:

The complainant was appointed by the respondent as a

driver w.e.f. 02/02/1998 on monthly salary of Rs.1,750/-. He was
terminated on 02/11/1999. He challenged the termination order in
Ref. IDA Case No. 49/2000 which was allowed. Against it, the
respondent filed Writ Petition and the matter was remanded for fresh
decision. The reference was then decided and was answered in the
negative. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred Writ Petition
No. 205/2009. It was allowed and the respondent was directed to
reinstate the complainant on the post of driver with continuity of
service. The complainant got the certified copy of the order and went
to the office of respondent on 05/05/2015 with request to get him
joined on duty. He was asked to wait for some time for confirmation
and approval from the Head Office. After waiting for sometime, he
moved application on 20/07/2015 and thereafter frequently visited the
office of respondent but he was not given the job as per the directions
of Hon’ble High Court. The respondent filed Review petition vide
Stamp No.11312/2015 which also came to be rejected by the Hon’ble
High Court vide order dated 11/09/2015.

3. After passing of order dated 11/09/2015, the respondent

through their Regional Branch Manager (South-2) issued a letter
dated 26/10/2015 and thereby issued order of reinstatement stating
that the complainant is directed to co-operate with the branch
administration in the reinstatement and posting on the terms and
conditions mentioned in the letter enclosed and to report on duty. His
back wages will be released through monthly pay roll. After receipt of
the said letter, the complainant went to the office of respondent and
he was reinstated. The respondent/management obtained his
 3. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

signatures on various papers written in English without explaining the

contents thereof. Then, the respondent issued employment contract
dated 24/10/2015 mentioning therein that the complainant was
appointed as driver under sub-staff cadre of the company w.e.f.
02/11/2015 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein and he
was shown for the first time recruited on the post of driver on basic
pay of Rs.6,900/- with conveyance and other allowances. His
signature was obtained on the said contract without informing terms
and conditions. Later on, he learnt about the terms and conditions of
the said contract and he immediately gave protest letter narrating
therein that his service was protected by the order of Hon’ble High
Court. Thereafter, the management demanded his signatures on
various papers without informing him the contents. The complainant
asked the copies thereof. The branch administrator Shri Sushilkumar
Naik refused to supply copies of those papers and obtained his
signatures on those papers. The management issued him notice
dated 09/11/2015 alleging therein that he refused to sign the papers
regarding Employee Data Form, Background Verification Form,
Group Health Insurance Form, Gratuity and P. F. nomination forms,
S.G.S. Rules for life and other forms. In fact, the complainant had
never refused to sign on these forms. He had only demanded the
copies thereof to know the contents therein.

4. The management has not paid salary as per seniority but

paid Rs.8,975/- per month which was not legal and proper. In fact,
considering the seniority, he was entitled to get monthly salary of
Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/-. The complainant informed the respondent
that he has not been paid proper salary in compliance with the order
of the Hon’ble High Court. The respondent has terminated the
services of complainant through its Regional Branch Manager
 4. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

(South-2) and it has been contended in the letter that it has no post of
driver anywhere in the company and due to non-availability of work of
driver, they have decided to discontinue the services of the
complainant with immediate effect. He was given compensation @
Basic pay for every completed year of service amounting to
Rs.62,100/- and notice pay of Rs.8,975/- and gratuity amount of
Rs.71,654/- which was received by him under protest. The amount
given to him was not legal and proper. The amount of compensation
was not determined properly. The respondent has terminated his
services illegally by engaging in unfair labour practices. After his
termination, he has tried to get job elsewhere but could not succeed.
By making the above submissions, the complainant has sought the
relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

5. The respondent has resisted the complaint by filing its

written statement which is at Exh. C-4. It has admitted that the
respondent is a private limited company having branches in
Metropolitan cities all over India and also at Nagpur. There are
several employees working with it on various posts in India as well
as in various countries. It has denied the appointment of
complainant on the post of driver on 02/02/1998 on monthly salary of
Rs.1,750/- on regular basis. Filing of litigations and orders passed
therein are admitted. It has also admitted that the complainant had
sent letter dated 09/11/2015 mentioning therein that his services
were protected by the Hon’ble High Court and reinstatement was
given with continuity of service but he was shown newly appointed
person which was not correct and proper. The respondent had
issued notice dated 09/11/2015 in respect of denial of complainant to
sign various forms in respect of his employment. It is denied that the
complainant had not refused to do so. It has denied that complainant
 5. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

was entitled to monthly wages of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- considering

his seniority. Termination of services of complainant is not
disputed. It has denied that the amount given to him was not legal
and proper. Denying the adverse allegations, the respondent has
prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6. This Court has framed issues at Exh. O-2.

7. The complainant has filed his affidavit of examination-in-

chief which is at Exh. U-8. He has closed his evidence vide pursis
Exh. U-14.

8. The respondent has examined Mr. Sushilkumar Naik by

filing his affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh. C-16 and closed its
evidence vide pursis Exh. C-18. The documents filed and relied
upon by the parties are referred by me in my foregoing discussion.

9. Having heard both the sides and having gone through

the evidence on record, I record my findings to issues framed at Exh.
O-2 along with my reasons thereon as under:

ISSUES FINDINGS

1) Whether the complainant proves that : In the affirmative.

his services were illegally terminated
on 31-12-2015 by the respondent ?

2) Whether the complainant proves that : In the affirmative.

the respondent has engaged in unfair
labour practice under Item I
Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act ?

3) Whether the complainant proves that : He is entitled to

he is entitled for reinstatement with reinstatement with
continuity of service and full back continuity of service
 6. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

wages ? and 25% back wages.

4) What order ? : Complaint is partly

allowed.

REASONS

AS TO ISSUES No. 1 to 3 :

10. The evidence of complainant is replica of his complaint.

The complainant has deposed that he was appointed by the
respondent as a driver w.e.f. 02/02/1998 on monthly salary of
Rs.1,750/-. He was terminated on 02/11/1999. He challenged the
termination order in Ref. IDA Case No. 49/2000 which was allowed.
Against it, the respondent filed Writ Petition and the matter was
remanded for fresh decision. The reference was then decided and
was answered in the negative. Being aggrieved, the complainant
preferred Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.
205/2009. It was allowed by order dated 23/04/2015 whereby the
respondent was directed to reinstate the complainant on the post of
driver with continuity of service without back wages. In his cross
examination, he has admitted that pursuant to letter dated
26/10/2015 Exh. U-11 issued by the respondent, he joined his duty.
He has admitted receipt of termination order dated 31/12/2015 which
is at Exh. U-22. He has admitted that he received Rs.62,100/-
towards retrenchment compensation, Rs.8,975/- towards notice pay
and Rs.71,654/- towards gratuity through cheque.

11. Admittedly, the award dated 11/04/2008 in Ref. IDA Case

No. 49/2000 was quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble High Court
 7. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

and it was answered in the affirmative holding that the termination of

complainant dated 02/11/1999 was in violation of section 25F of the
I.D. Act and the employer/ respondent was directed to reinstate the
complainant in service on the post of driver with continuity but he was
not entitled for back wages. As per the order of Hon’ble High Court,
the respondent has reinstated the complainant.

12. To justify the impugned termination, the respondent has

submitted that as the post of driver is not available, it does not require
the services of complainant, the services of complainant came to be
terminated by order dated 31/12/2015 by following due process of
law. However, on perusal of evidence of respondent’s witness Mr.
Sushilkumar Naik at Exh.C-16, in his cross examination, this witness
has admitted that there are 1000 employees working in the
respondent company in all over India. The respondent has not
offered any other post to complainant when the post of driver was not
available.

13. On perusal of Exh. U-24 i.e. employment contract dated

24/10/2015, particularly clause no. 2 which is in respect of place of
work and which is reproduced below :

“2. PLACE OF WORK

Your immediate posting will be in our Branch Operations division at

Nagpur. You shall report to Mr. Sushil Naik, Branch Administrator,
SGS India – Nagpur branch.
At the sole discretion of the Management you may be posted or
transferred to any of the establishments, Departments, Business or
Operations of the Company, Corporate Body or Firms, Trusts, Society
or Association whatsoever with which the company may have any
 8. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

official concern in India or abroad and will be governed by the service

rules in force from time to time at the place of your posting.”
On going through this clause, it reveals that there are
various branches of the respondent company all over India and
abroad. Therefore, I find that the respondent company can transfer
and accommodate the complainant anywhere in the branch of the
company. The complainant has not committed any misconduct,
negligence, insubordination or breach of any terms and conditions of
service. Therefore, I do not accept the contention of respondent that
for non-availability of post of driver, the services of complainant came
to be terminated. The reason for termination of services of
complainant is patently false and on this count, the termination of
complainant became illegal. It amounts to unfair labour practice as
envisaged in Item I of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

14. Once it is held that the impugned termination is the

outcome of unfair labour practices on the part of respondent, the
complainant is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. As
regards back wages, it is averred and stated on oath by the
complainant that after his termination, he tried to secure job but
could not succeed. However, it is implied position that a person
cannot survive without earning something for his livelihood.
Considering this, grant of 25% back wages to complainant would
meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the complaint deserves to be
partly allowed. Answering the Issues No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative
and Issue No. 3 accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

Order

1. The complaint is partly allowed.

 9. Comp. ULP No. 25/2016.

2. It is hereby declared that by illegally terminating

the services of complainant w.e.f. 31/12/2015, the
respondent has indulged in unfair labour practices
as envisaged in Item I of Schedule IV of the MRTU
& PULP Act.

3. The respondent is directed to cease and desist

from engaging in aforesaid unfair labour practices.

4. The respondent is directed to reinstate the

complainant on his former post with continuity of
service and to pay of 25 % back wages within one
month from the date of this order.

5. Parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/-
(Smt. V. O. Patil)
Place : Nagpur. Judge,
Date : 25/07/2019. First Labour Court, Nagpur.

Argued on 17/07/2019
Judgment dictated on 25/07/2019
Judgment transcribed on 25/07/2019
Judgment checked & signed on 25/07/2019