IN THE COURT OF SH******; AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER; (DISTRICT SOUT-EAST); KALKAJI; NEW DELHI.

                                         S&E/SED/***/20**/****

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SH. ****************                                         : CLAIMANT

VERSUS

M/S ***********                                                    : RESPONDENT

                                                                          N.D.O.H.:  30.09.20**

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE **** ********** AGAINST A CLAIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE CLAIMANT NAMELY ********** UNDER DELHI SHOPS & ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1954.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -

1.              That the claimant filed the present complaint against the respondents and same is fixed for today 30.09.2***.

2.              That it is to be stated at the outset that the present claim is bad in law as the same has been issued under the provisions of law which are not applicable to the Respondents. The Respondents are an individual and not a shop or establishment and therefore not covered under the acts mentioned in the claim. The claim under reply thus deserves to be recalled on this score alone and issuance of this claim itself is bad in law. Any pursuance of this claim would lead to unwarranted harassment of the Respondents for which Respondent might have to file complaint and pursue other remedies against Mr. **** and claim damages form Mr. **** personally as he is acting beyond law.

3.              That the he Respondents recently superannuated as an Indian Revenue officer. The claim under reply has been issued without verifying facts and in haste. The Respondent is thus forced to say that without verifying the true facts and your goodself had issued a notice which is bad in law and has also caused harassment and great mental agony to claimant, who has a distinguished career as Class 1 officer of Government of India. It is most respectfully submitted that in December 20**, Mr. ******** who had come through the Drive U App. showed his keenness to join as a fulltime driver with the claimant and he sent his terms through WhatsApp which was agreed to, and thereafter he was inducted in January 2023. In the first week of joining, he said he had lost his mobile phone and requested to claimant to help him by contribution of Rs. 5000/- for purchasing new mobile phone, which was given to him. Then within a couple of months, he again said he wanted to buy a motorcycle as he had no conveyance, daughter *******, of the claimant handed over him Rs.35,000/- via online transfer. The duty hour which were agreed upon were from 12 afternoon to 10:00 pm, and overtime as Rs. 100/- per additional hours and reimbursement of food, claimant settled the accounts on a daily basis through Paytm or cash. As the payments of settling the accounts can be provided, if desired.

4.              That the conduct of the *****/ claimant was always cantankerous and aggressive with the claimant, her sister Ms. ****, her daughter and other person in the society. Many complaints against him were raised by the neighbors and guards and his bad behavior and aggressive nature. Even while driving he would be rash and pick-up a fight with other drivers. He explained his bitter temperament on account of hardships in life and claimant tolerated on a humanitarian basis. The sister of claimant namely Ms. ********** was badly treated by him. She had also found him to be drinking while on duty in the afternoon, due to which she stopped driven by him. He frequently took leaves and at the last movement called and said he was unable to come as he was not well. There are WhatsApp chats to this effect. claimant never deducted any amount on excessive leave and always paid his full salary. He said that his mother was ill and she was on medication and he was the only person to take care of her. Due to which whenever he asked for advance salary, claimant transferred the same instantly without any question. Screenshots of the transactions and conversation are available as evidence.

5.              That here were never any terms of bonus or notice period for a month (though claimant informed him a month in advance to quit after the advance was adjusted). The claimant liberally gave him money on all festivals, occasions / birthdays. Despite all the financial helps, unlimited leave on account of medical issues for himself and his mother, the behavior of Mr. ******* was absolutely deplorable. The claimant could not have carried on with him for his terrible attitude and mannerisms and so claimant informed him of her decision to discontinue with him in advance 23.10.2***. He had been paid advance salary till 08.11.20** an amount of Rs.10,000/- was again paid to him on 25.11.20**. There were no dues payable to him.

6.              That it is to be stated that the present claim application is bad in the eyes of law as the same has been issued under the wrong provisions of law.

7.              That the claimant is thus forced to say that without verifying the true facts, this Hon’ble Tribunal had issued a notice which is bad in law and has also caused harassment and great mental agony to claimant, who has a distinguished career as Class I Officer in government of India. 

8.              That the proceedings initiated before the Ld. Labour Inspector were thoroughly investigated and subsequently quashed, as no evidence was found against the Respondent. This finding indicates that the allegations raised by the claimant were unfounded. Following the quashing of the proceeding before Ld. Labour Inspector, the claimant approached the Ld. Conciliation Department. Respondent provided a comprehensive submission outlining the facts, reiterating position that the allegations lack merit and are not supported by evidence.

9.              That the present claim does not fall within the purview of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, or the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent would like to draw your attention to the Supreme Court ruling in AIR 1974 SC 1527 (Chief Commissioner, Delhi vs. Federation of Indian Chambers). This citation clearly establishes the boundaries of applicability for these acts, reinforcing our assertion that the claim is misplaced.

10.           It is submitted that the present claim is an attempt to harass the Respondent, given the lack of substantial grounds for the allegations made. The continued pursuit of this matter, despite previous findings, appears to be a strategy to create undue stress on the Respondent rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

11.           That here it is vehemently denied that any amount is due towards him. The entire complaint is malicious and should be dismissed forthwith. In light of the aforementioned submissions, Respondents respectfully request that the claim of the claimant be dismissed on the grounds of lack of merit and for being an abuse of the legal process.

Prayer clause of the application is denied and claimant is not entitled to relief claimed for.       

That the application is liable to be dismissed in view of the submissions made above. It is prayed that it be dismissed with heavy costs.

Pass such further order or orders as this Labour Department/ Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and may pass in favour of the answering respondents, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.

RESPONDENTS

DELHI       

DATED:                         THROUGH

(*********** SHARMA)

ADVOCATES

******

                               Email Id***********