IN THE HONBLE

LABOUR COURT AT
MUMBAI

REFERENCE (IDA) NO.

OF 2016

BETWEEN
M/s. The States People Private Ltd,
Janmabhoomi Group of Newspaper,
Janmabhoomi Bhavan,
Janmabhoomi Marg,
Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

First Party Employer

V/s.
Mr. Dhiraj Mohan Patel
C/o. Maharashtra Employees Union,
Kokanipada, Kurar Village,
Malad (East), Mumbai -400 097.

Age: ___ Years

Second Party Workman

STATEMENT OF CLAIM BY THE WORKMAN

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE UNDER
SECTION 2 A (2) OF INDUTSRIAL DISPUTES
ACT

REGARDING

HIS

REINSTATEMENT

W.E.F. 11.08.1997 ALONG WITH CONTINUITY

OF SERVICE AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:
I, Dhiraj Mohan Patel (hereinafter referred to as the Second
Party Workman), concerned in the above reference most
respectfully, begs to submit as under:1.

It is submitted that the First Party is registered under

the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of

print media and printing, circulating and selling of Gujrati
daily, evening daily, weekly and monthly Newspaper /
Magazines. The First Party conducting its aforesaid

business activities from the address given in the title along

with other places i.e. from Bhuj & Rajkot etc. The First Party
is printing & selling annual panchang also. The First Party
had been employing about 300 employees in their regular &
permanent employment for different types of jobs at the
relevant time.
2.

It is submitted that second party was in the

employment of First Party since1979 working continuously &

permanently till the date of his illegal & unjustified dismissal
i.e.11.08.1997. The second party was working as Computer
Operator in the Photocompose Department and his last
drawn wages were Rs. 7,000/- per month.
3.

It is submitted that there was a Union functioning

amongst the workmen of first Party Company by name

SAURASHTRA TRUST KARMACHARI SANGH [hereinafter
for the sake of brevity referred to as the Sangh], which was
later found to be sponsored Union of the First Party and not
Keen to protect the interest of the workmen and to work for
their betterment. Therefore, the majority of workmen
including the second party resigned from the membership of
the said Sangh and joined Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha
[hereinafter referred to as the Sabha] led by late Shri. R. J.
Mehta. The formation of the said Sabha was never liked by
the First Party and they wanted the said Sangh only to
function as Union in their establishment. The First Party
succeeded in breaking the said Sabha, but the workmen
instead of joining the said Sangh as desired by First Party,
became the members of a Union namely Kamgar Utkarsh
Sabha. The First Party again with a view to revive the said
Sangh, broke the Kamgar Utkarsh Sabha, But, the workmen
again did not join the Sangh and preferred to accept the
representation through said Sabha under the leadership of
late Shri. R. J. Mehta. The said Sabha have also got status

of recognized Union under the MRTU & PULP Act for the
establishment of First Party.
4.

It is submitted that the said Sabha acted with all

bonafide for the betterments of the workmen and the First

Party was made to extend financial benefits to the workmen
by way of increasing / introducing salaries & allowances. It
is further submitted that the said Sabha somewhere in the
month of August 1994, raised demand for the Payment of
20% bonus to the workmen which the management of the
First Party declined to concede and in furtherance thereto,
the President of the Sabha held a Gate Meeting and
convinced all the workers that they will fight for their
entitlement in a legal ways in the Court of law. Thereafter,
the relations between the Management and the Sabha were
strained

and

the

matter

regarding

the

Bonus

was

subsequently referred by the appropriate authority for

adjudication before Industrial Tribunal vide Reference (IT)
No. 53 of 1996.
5.

It is submitted that during the same period in the

month of August 1994, there were elections for the Local

Committee Members of the Sabha wherein several
workmen contested the said elections. Some of them won
the elections and the others lost. The Management, taking
undue advantage of the situation of differences among the
workers due to the elections, again started its old practice of
reviving its own puppet Union i.e. the said Sangh.
6.

It is submitted that the same practice was adopted by

the Management some 15 years ago when the Management

had ousted the same Sabha and later on the Kamgar
Utkarsha Sabha also and in the both the cases, the
Management had tried to revive its own puppet Union i.e.
SAURASHTRA TRUST KARMACHARI SANGH and used

almost the same persons to harass and victimize the

leading activists of the Sabha at that time. Thus it is clear
that the management is fond of having only a convenient,
favourable and puppet Union like the Sangh. The First Party
through their Officers and their puppet workmen continued
to motivate / pressurize the second party along with other
workmen to resign from the membership of the said Sabha /
not to contest the local committee of the Sabha. The second
party did not bow to the threatening and pressure tactics of
First Party.
7.

It is submitted that the management of the company

made several futile attempts to dislodge the Sabha from the

Company and bring the said Sangh. However due to the
continued allegiance and unity amongst I and my other coworkmen, all these illegal attempts were thwarted. Being led
by these continuous defeats, the Company and its
management adopted a novel and ingenious method of
terrorizing me and my other co-workmen and establishing
fear psychosis amongst the workmen, by falsely implicating
all leading activists and particularly the Committee Members
of the said Sabha in false and frivolous cases of alleged
misconducts with the help of members of the said Sangh,
which was specifically created by the management of the
Company for the said purpose.
8.

It is submitted that the members of the Sangh were

instigated by the management of the Company to dislodge

the said Sabha by creating another internal union under the
same name of earlier said Sangh, of which registration was
cancelled by the Registrar of the Trade Union, for non-filing
of returns of four years, in the year 1990. It is a fact that
though the new Union was registered under the same
earlier

Unions name,

it

had

altogether

different

registration number and therefore it was a new trade Union.

It is submitted that on the contrary the Assistant General

Manager, one Mr. N. Srinivasan of the First Party called the
second party in his chamber and insisted that he should
resign from the said Sabha, which the second party declined
to consent. It is further submitted that the First Party with a
pre-planned idea and with malafide intentions issued a
charge sheet dated 04.01.1996, to the second party making
false, frivolous, baseless allegation of misconduct against
the second party and suspended him pending enquiry into
the alleged misconduct. The second party replied to the said
chargesheet

of

the

employer

vide

his

reply

dated

10.02.1996 and denied all the allegations, charges alleged

against him and requested the First Party to revoke the
suspension and the enquiry to be conducted in Hindi
language known to him. The copy of chargesheet dated
04.01.1996 and reply dated 10.02.1996 is enclosed with as
Annexure A collectively to the separate list of
documents attached herewith.
9.

It is submitted that the First Party got conducted the

enquiry and after so-called report and findings dated

05.05.1997 of the Enquiry Officer, the First Party issued the
second show cause notice dated 17.07.1997, to the second
party which was replied by the second party vide his letter
dated ---------------. The copy of aforesaid reply of the second
party is enclosed as Annexure B to the separate list of
documents attached herewith. It is submitted that as the
First Party were pre-determined, they dismissed the second
party vide their letter dated 11.08.1997. The copy of the said
dismissal letter is enclosed as Annexure C to the
separate list of documents attached herewith.
10.

It is submitted that the enquiry conducted by E.O is

unfair, illegal & improper and the findings of the E.O are

biased & perverse for the following ground amongst various

others;
(a)

That the alleged provisions of standing orders under

which the chargesheet and disciplinary action is initiated

against the second party, is not certified and applicable for
the establishment in which the second party had been
working. The alleged standing orders are purported to be
certified for the establishments other than M/s. The States
People Private Ltd, of which the second party is a workman.
Thus, the basis of the entire action of the First Party is illegal
and void ab intio.
(b)

That the signatory to the chargesheet is incompetent

and unauthorized person to issue the same under the

standing orders and Factories Act. Hence the action of First
Party is illegal, unjust & improper.
(c)

That the E.O was not an impartial & independent

person. He belonged to the chamber of Labour Advisor /

consultant / retainer of the First Party Company. The
Management Representative (M.R) also belonged to the
same chamber. In these circumstances, the E.O acted in the
interest & favour of the management along with M.R under
the guidance of boss of the said chamber. Hence the E.O
cannot be said to be independent & impartial person.
(d)

That the enquiry was conducted in English language

to which the second party was not conversant & well versed.
The request of the second party to conduct the enquire inn
Hindi language was deliberately turned down by the E.O.
Hence, the same violates the principles of natural justice
and vitiated the enquiry.
(e)

That the First Party did not like the Mumbai Mazdoor

Sabha as stated above, the First Party had issued false &

bogus chargesheet to about 12 workmen owing allegiance

to said Sabha and all were illegally dismissed after
conducting so-called enquiries. All these enquiries along
with various others in the past have been conducted by the
same E.O. and he held all the employees guilty of the socalled charges and the concerned workmen were dismissed
by the First Party. It is submitted that though the charge
sheets were separately issued to Second Party and Mr. V.
R. Singh, a co-workmen, the E.O. conducted joint and
common enquiry into both separate chargesheet issued to
Second Party and Mr. V. R. Singh inspite of specific
objection of the defence in this regards. Hence, the enquiry
is unfair, illegal, unjust and improper. The First Party have
also never authorized the E.O. to conduct joint/common
enquiry into the charge sheets issued to Second Party and
Mr. V. R. Singh.
(f)

That the E.O & M.R were legally sound and practicing

Advocates and were heavily paid for enquiry. The request of

the second party to management for paying equal charges
to the second party to enable him to engage competent &
efficient person to defend him in the enquire and the second
party could have been equally placed for his defence at par
with the management, was deliberately denied by the E.O
which also vitiate the enquiry.
(g)

That the list of witnesses to be examined by the First

Party in the enquiry was not provided to the second party

prior to start the evidence of the management in the enquiry.
Similarly the alleged documents on which the management
relied in the enquiry were not provided to the second party
along with the chargesheet. Those alleged documents were
produced directly in the enquiry, leaving its genuineness in
serious doubt. Hence the enquiry is unfair, illegal &
improper.

(h)

That the relevant and necessary documents, inspite of

specific request if the defense, were not produce in the

enquiry by the First party. Therefore great prejudice & loss
has been caused to the second party.
(i)

That the relevant questions put by the Defence

Representative (D.R) to the management witnesses in the

enquiry were deliberately not allowed by the E.O, to protect
the interest of the First Party. The management also failed &
avoided to examine the necessary & independent witness in
the enquiry and hence the alleged enquiry remained
creation of paper record and formality to prove a misconduct
which never existed nor committed by the second party.
(j)

Without prejudice to the above, the second party shall

refer & rely upon the submissions made by second party &
its D.R during the course of enquiry as and when produced.
It is submitted that on the aforesaid ground amongst various
others, the enquiry conducted against the second party is
illegal, improper & unfair.
11.

It

is

submitted

that

vide

charge

sheet

dated

04.01.1996, four so-called charges numbering 1 to 4, were

alleged against the second party under the so-called
standing order, the same are reproduced herein below ;
(1)

Commission of any act subversive of discipline or

good behavior on the premises of the establishment.

(2)

Collecting without the permission of the Manager of

any money within the premises of the establishment
except as sanctioned by any law for the time being in
force.

(3)

Holding

meetings

inside

the

premises

of

the

establishment without previous permission of the

Manager or except in accordance with the provisions
of any law for the time being in force.
(4)

Engaging in trade Union within the premises of the

establishment outside the scope of his duties.

12.

It is further submitted that bare perusal of the oral &

documentary evidence produced by the First Party in the

enquiry, there is nothing to substantiate and prove any of
the charges referred above as leveled against the second
party. The facts are entirely different and the charges are
totally separate. There is no relation existed or proved
between the facts and the charges, the charge number 1,
i.e. Commission of any act subversive is a common
charge and it can be established only when the other three
charges are proved by independent and cogent fact and
evidence. Since there is no fact & evidence to prove charge
number 2 to 4, the charge number 1, also cannot be said to
be proved.
13.

It is submitted that the charge no. 4, i.e. Engaging in

trade union. From the chargesheet is not found to be

proved by the E.O as per his report. So far as the charge
no. 2, i.e. Collecting without the permission of the
management of any money .. and charge no. 3, i.e.
Holding meeting inside the premises.., neither there are
any facts of allegations about the same in the chargesheet
nor there is any iota of evidence in the statements of
management witnesses, still the E.O held the second party
guilty of these charges no. 2 & 3 and consequently for
charge no. 1. These observation / conclusion of the E.O is
nothing, but, perversity in his report & findings because of
his biased approached.

14.

It is submitted the E.O wrongly relied on the

documents produced by the management during the course

of enquiry, the authenticity & genuineness of which was too
far from its reliability. Similarly the E.O entirely failed and
avoided to give any sound & cogent reasoning while
discarding the evidence of defense particularly establishing
the entire act of the First Party being false, fabricated, full of
malafide and by way of victimisation.
15.

It is submitted that the E.O have reached to such

conclusion in his report & findings to which no one of

common prudence could have reached on the basis of
documents & evidences available in the enquiry. The E.O
did not apply even a minimum judicial mind while arriving
such conclusion against the second party. The E.O has
deliberately failed and neglected to give any reason as to
why he heavily relied upon the evidence of the management
witnesses who were entirely partial & interested witnesses
and not the independent.
16.

In view of the above amongst various others the report

and findings of the E.O is biased and perverse. The second

party replied the second show cause notice of the First
Party and raised his comments and objection on the report
and findings of the E.O and further requested the
management not to take any action against the second
party on the basis of such reports & findings of the E.O. The
First Party ignored the comments and objections of the
second

party

and

imposed

harsh

&

shockingly

disproportionate punishment of dismissal which is entirely

an act of pre-determination of management with all malafide
and by way of victimisation, as the second party was active
member of Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha which was never liked
by the First Party. Further, the second party contested the

election of local committee of the said Sabha and did not

withdraw his nomination from the said election as desired by
one of the witnesses i.e. Mr. Danbahadur Dixit, who had
been the active member of the said Sangh. Though said Mr.
Dixit was also contesting the election of local committee of
said Sabha, but, it was at the instance of the First Party to
insert the people of Sangh in the committee of the said
Sabha. The said Mr. Dixit stood as a tool for the
management of the First Part against the second Party to
give his evidence supporting the false & fabricating charges.
17.

It is submitted that the action of First Party to dismiss

the Second Party is totally illegal, unfair and unjustified. The

enquiry conducted against him is illegal, unfair and improper
and findings of the E.O. are biased and perverse.

The

dismissal of the Second Party by the First Party Company is

by way of victimization for patently false reasons and in utter
disregard to the principles of natural justices and in
colourable

exercise

of

its

managerial

powers.

The

punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. The

First Party deliberately failed and neglected the fact that the
past service records of the Second Party is cleaned and
unblemished, but, the First Party was predetermined to
throw out the Second Party from the employment only
because he was active member of the Sabha and the First
Party was bent upon to destroy the said Sabha amongst its
workmen. The predetermined approach of the First Party is
evidently clear from the fact that all the 12 workmen
subjected to enquiries into alleged charges were dismissed
and most of them have accepted the amount from the
management
pressurized.

being

tremendously

harassed

and

18.

It is submitted that as the Industrial Dispute regarding

bonus was pending before Honble Industrial Tribunal,

Mumbai vide Reference (IT) No. 53 of 1996, the First Party
issued the dismissal order to the Second Party along with a
cheque of Rs. ________/- without giving any detailed
statement of said payment and simultaneously approached
the Honble Industrial Tribunal for approval U/s. 33(2) (b) of
the I.D. Act., vide Application (IT) No. 20 of 1997. The said
approval application was resisted by the Second Party and
Honble Industrial Tribunal was pleased to reject the
approval application of the First Party vide its order dated
21.07.2006. The Second Party shall refer upon the said
order of Honble Industrial Tribunal dated 21.07.2006 as and
when produced.
19.

It is submitted that the First Party Company

challenged the aforesaid order of Honble Industrial Tribunal

before Honble High Court vide Writ Petition No. 2557 of
2006. The said Writ Petition along with other petitions was
allowed by Honble High Court vides Judgment dated
12.01.2015, and the order of Honble Industrial Tribunal was
set aside.

The Second Party approached the Honble

Supreme Court vide SLP No. _____ of ____, but, the same
was not entertained by the Honble Supreme Court and the
Second Party was given oral directions to approach to avail
the appropriate remedy available under the I.D. Act i.e. to
raise the Industrial Dispute U/s. 2(A) of the Act.
20.

It is submitted that accordingly the Second Party

raised his demands vide his letter dated 20.12.2015, on the

First Party and thereafter sought the intervention of
Conciliation Officer along with his justification dated
30.01.2016. Since the conciliation proceedings could not
started till October 2016 before appropriate authority, in view
of the amended provisions of Section 2(A)(2) of the I. D. Act,

the Second Party informed the conciliation officer about his

intention to approach the Honble Court directly in the matter
vide his letter dated 08.10.2016, and accordingly the
Second Party is submitting his Statement of Claim before
this Honble Court for adjudication. The copy of demand
letter dated 20.12.2015, along with the postal receipt and
acknowledgment, is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-D. The copy of Justification Statement dated
30.01.2016,

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

Annexure-E & the copy of the letter dated 08.10.2016,

submitted before the Government Labour Officer by the
Second Party is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-F.
21.

It is submitted that the delay occurred in approaching

this Honble Court is not intentional and deliberate on the

part of Second Party rather it is because of continued
ongoing legal process / litigations.
22.

It is submitted that the Second Party is made to face

long going litigation because of illegal and malafide acts of

the management with empty stomach. It is further submitted
that the termination of the services effected by the First
Party Employer is thus, unjust, illegal, improper, malafide
and arbitrary. Thus, the First Party Employer has acted
colorably while terminating the services of the Second Party
Workman.
23.

It is submitted that considering the circumstances

mentioned

hereinabove

the

punishment

of

dismissal

awarded by the First Party Employer to the Second Party

Workman is shockingly disproportionate and unduly harsh
punishment and is tantamount to sentencing the Second
Party workman to economic death. This submission is made
without prejudice to the contention of the Second Party that

he has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the

Charge-sheet or otherwise or at all.
24.

It is submitted that the Second Party Workman is the

permanent employee and his past service record is clean,

spotless and unblemished, the action of dismissal of the
Second Party Workman by the First Party Employer is illegal
and unfair and an act of deliberate and malicious, malafide
victimization and vengeance for his Union activities. It is
further submitted that after the dismissal in the above
manner the Second Party Workman is rendered jobless and
could not get any employment although he tried his level
best and therefore the second party is not gainfully
employed. The claim of back wages by Second Party
Workman is proper, legal and justified.
25.

It is submitted that the work being performed by the

second party is available with the First Party Employer and

he was and is always ready and willing to perform his duties
as usual. The Second Party shall refer to the record and
proceedings of the enquiry at the time of hearing. The
Originals of the same are kept and preserved by the First
Party Employer, who may please be directed to produce the
same before the Honble Court.
26.

In view of the above, it is prayed that the Honble

Court be pleased to decide the reference in affirmative and

to grant the following reliefs in the favour of second party by
passing an Award;
a)

That the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is

illegal, unfair, improper and against the principles of natural

justice and alleged report & findings of the E.O is biased
and perverse.

b)

That to quash and set aside the dismissal order dated

11.08.1997 being illegal, unjustified and being harsh &

shockingly disproportionate punishment.
c)

That direct the First Party Employer to reinstate the

Second Party Workman in the employment of the First Party

Employer in his original post with continuity of service and
full back wages along with 18% compound interest on the
full back wages w.e.f. 11.08.1997, along with consequential
reliefs which he would have got had he been in the
employment of First Party.
d)

That to pass other and further order of this Honble

Court as deem fit in the interest of law & justice.

Crave leave to add, to amend or alter any of the above
statements in the light of foregoing things as and when
necessary.
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.12.2016

(Dhiraj M. Patel)
Second Party Workman
VERIFICATION

I, Dhiraj Mohan Patel, Second Party Workman, do hereby

state, declare and verify that whatever is stated in foregoing
paragraphs of this Statement of Claim is true and correct to
the best of my own knowledge, information and belief, which
I believe to be true.
The legal submissions are made on the basis of legal advice
received by me and I believe the same to be correct.
This Verification is signed at Mumbai on this 27 th day of
December, 2016.

Place: Mumbai
Dated: 27.12.2016

(Dhiraj M. Patel)
Second Party Workman