The NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint represented claimant filed rejoinder controverting the plea taken in the written statement and reasserting those of the claim statement. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled by learned predecessor of this court vide order dated 2.6.18:-
1. Whether the claimant NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint had himself abandoned his services or his services were illegally terminated by the Advocates for regular bail represented respondent, if illegally terminated then to what relief, he is entitled to?OPW 2. Whether the claimant NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint had completed period of more than 240 days continuously preceding the date of termination of his service or not?OPWM 3. Relief. To order to prove his case the workman stepped into the witness as WW-1 and deposed in the support of his case. On the other hand the management examined who tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A in documentary evidence he produced on record Ex.MW-01 to Ex.MW-24. I have heard authorized representatives for both the parties and perused the evidence placed on record. My issue wise findings are given as hereunder:- Both these issues are inter-connected and inter-related. Hence they are taken up together. It has been argued by Authorized representative for the workman that the NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint was appointed as Helper on 15.1.2018 by the respondent Advocates for regular bail on the post of welder and he worked upto 14.5.2018. It was further contended that the claimant has also completed a continuous service of 240 days with the Advocates for regular bail preceding the date of termination of his services. The NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint raised a demand notice on 29.5.2018 promptly. It was further argued that the workman appeared as WW1 and proved his pleadings. The fact that no appointment letter at the time of joining the duty was given to the workman was admitted by the witness of respondent. In para I of his affidavit in last line relationship of employer and employee between the parties was also admitted by the Advocates for regular bail. No documents regarding employment were provided to the workman. The stand of respondent that he was appointed on 12.9.2018 is an afterthought just to circumvent the relief of workman. The witness of respondent is not conversant of the facts as he joined the Advocates for regular bail concern in January 2018 and relevant record is not produced before the court just to conceal the true facts. No letter to call back the workman on duty was ever issued by the respondent company to prove the plea of abandonment. The witness of respondent also admitted that ESI and PF is applicable in the respondent concern from 2005. Returns of PF and ESI were not produced just to conceal the true facts. On the other hand it has been argued by authorized representative for the respondent that the workman has not completed 240 days of continuous service with the Advocates for regular bail in his service rather he had worked only for 207 days and the claim of workman is liable to be dismissed on this ground. He further contended that management witness MW1 has filed Ex.MW1/A affidavit to prove the contents of written statement and the management has also placed on record muster rolls for the period from August 2017 to July 2018 which is Ex.M1 to Ex.M-12 and photo copy of salary register for the period August 2017 to July 2018. Which is Ex M13 to Ex M24 .The workman in his cross examination also submitted that he has no proof for working for 240 days with the Advocates for regular bail concern.He has not produced any appointment letter, wage slips, attendance card, proof of salary and ESI/PF proof for working with the respondent for more than 240 days. He further argued that workman has to prove his case that he has worked for 240 days continuously in a year preceding the date of termination of his services and the NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint fails to prove the same and therefore he is not entitled to any relief, while on the other hand the management has proved its stand for adducing documentary evidence. I have considered the contention of both the parties and perused the record. The relationship of employee and employer between the parties are not denied. The stand of the workman is that he joined the services of Advocates for regular bail on 15.1.2018 and worked till 14.5.2018 and completed 240 days of continuous service with the respondent and his services were terminated illegally and arbitrarily, while the stand of respondent is that the NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint joined the respondent concern on 12.9.2018 and his last drawn wages were Rs.4500/- P.M. and he worked upto 9.5.2018 and the claimant has not completed 240 days of continuous service with the Advocates for regular bail and abandoned his job willfully at his own. To prove its pleadings the workman appeared as WW1 and stated on oath that he was appointed by the Advocates for regular bail on 15.1.2018 and worked upto 14.5.2018 as a welder. The NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint stated that no appointment letter was issued to him by the respondent. On 15.5.2018 as usual when he went to attend his duty the security officer refused to allow him to enter the premises of company. When the claimant asked the reason for not allowing him to entering the premises of Advocates for regular bail, the said he replied that the manager has directed him to do so. Other workmen were also stopped to enter the premises on the same day, lastly on 15.5.2018 services of claimant were terminated illegally for which the NRI Lawyers for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint filed a demand notice dated 29.5.2018.
0 Comments
|