BEFORE DR. SURENDER MOHIT SINGH, LD.
DISTRICT
JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT – VIII,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT CORUT, NEW DELHI
CASE NO. LIR / 801 / 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
… CLAIMANT
VERSUS
… MANAGEMENTS
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
MANAGEMENT NO. 1
The management no. 1 most respectfully submits as under:
At the outset, the management denies each and every averment /
contention / allegations stated in the Claim filed by the Claimant.
No part of the Claim is admitted by the Management.
Preliminary submissions / objections
1. [hereinafter ‘Management No. 1’] is a
company engaged in the business of real estate, and is
registered under Companies Act, 2013.
1.2 [hereinafter
‘Management No. 2’] is a company engaged in the business
of providing manpower to various companies.
1.3 The present claim petition is not maintainable against the
Management No. 1 as no cause of action has arisen against
the Management No. 1. Moreover, the Claimant has not
sought any relief from the Management No. 1.
1.4 The present claim is not maintainable before this Hon’ble
Court. Section 2(s) defines the ‘workman’ as under:
2(s)
Any person (including an apprentice) employed in any
industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or
implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this
Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched
in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or
whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of
1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an officer
or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity; or
(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,
draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per
mensem or exercises, either by nature of duties
attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial
nature.
1.5 The Claimant is not associated with the Management No.
1 in the capacity of ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the Act.
1.6 It is trite law that workman who is engaged through a
contractor is not a workman of the Principal employer for
whom he works and for all remedies, grievances etc he can
approach his employer, i.e. the contractor.
In light of the above, it is submitted that the Claimant is not
a workman under the Management No. 1 and any relief
sought qua the Management No. 1 is not sustainable in the
eyes of law.
1.7 The Claimant has not presented with the complete facts and
has falsely implicated the Management no. 1 by twisting and
turning the facts to suit his convenience. It is therefore,
imperative that complete facts are stated by the
Management No. 1 at seriatim.
(i) Management no. 1 awarded a contract to the
Management No. 2 for providing maintenance
services
.
(ii) The Claimant was deployed at the office of the
Management No. 1 by the Management No. 2 .
(iii) There exist no relations between the Claimant and
the Management No. 1 as the Claimant was not an
employee of the Management No. 1.
(iv) The Management No. 2 used to raise monthly bills
which were cleared by the Management No. 1 on
monthly basis. No transaction ever took place
between the Claimant and the Management No. 1.
1.8 The management no. 1 has no role in the present claim
petition as the present dispute is between the Claimant and
the management no. 2.
1.9 Taking into consideration the contract between the
Management No. 1 and Management No.2; the fact that all
the payment of wages were made by the Management No.
2, it is submitted that there is no workman – employee
relationship between the Claimant and the Management
within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Therefore,
the present claim petition is not maintainable against the
Management No. 1.
Para wise reply:
1. The contents of Para 1 are misconceived, misleading and
false. It is vehemently denied that the managers of the
Management No. 1 gave any assurances to the Claimant
for providing any legal entitlement to him. It is submitted
that the Management No. 1 never gave any assurance with
respect to any legal entitlement, to any worker as they were
not the employees of the Management No. 1.
It is further denied that the Claimant made repeated
demands to the Management No. 1 for giving wages. It is
submitted that the Management No. 2 paid the salary to its
employees. Therefore, Management No. 1 was not liable /
involved in the payment of the wages to the workers
deployed at its office. The Management No. 2 raised
monthly bills which were regularly cleared by the
Management No. 1.
2. The contents of Para 2 are misconceived, misleading and
false. The Claimant be put to strict proof of the same. It is
vehemently denied that employees of the Management No.
1 misbehaved with the Claimant. It is submitted that the
employees of the Management No. 1 were never confronted
by the Claimant regarding payment of the wages. The
Claimant is well aware of the fact that the wages was paid
to him by the Management No. 2 and Management No. 1
has no role in the same.
3. The contents of Para 3 are misconceived, misleading and
false. It is vehemently denied that the employees of the
Management No. 1 coerced the Claimant in putting his
signatures on blank paper. It is reiterated that since
Management No. 1 had no role in payment of wages to the
workers deployed at the office of Management No. 1.
Therefore, there arise no occasion for Management No. 1 to
coerce the Claimant into signing on any paper. It is
submitted that the Claimant was a contractual worker who
was deployed at the office of the Management No. 1 for a
limited period. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever for the
Management No. 1 to force / coerce the Claimant to put his
signature on a blank paper.
It is further denied that the Management No. 1 has violated
any provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is
reiterated that the Claimant is not an employee of the
Management No. 1 and the present dispute is between the
Claimant and the Management No. 1. Therefore, with
respect to the present dispute, the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act is not applicable on the Management No. 1.
4-6 The contents of paras 4 and 5 need no reply as the same are
not against the Management No. 1.
7. The contents of para 7 need no reply as any amendment that
the claimant may make in his claim shall be subject to legal
scrutiny and the Management No. 1 shall furnish the
relevant reply at the appropriate stage.
8. Contents of para 8 are misconceived, misleading and false.
he Claimant be put to strict proof of the same.
Last para is prayer para and the same need no reply as the Claimant
has not claimed any relief from the Management No. 1. Therefore,
no cause of action arises against the Management No. 1.
Thus, it is humbly prayed that the Management No. 1 may be
deleted from the array of parties.
