You are on page 1of 8

1

BEFORE THE HONBLE 3rd LABOUR COURT AT MUMBAI

R(IDA)No.156/2016

1) M/s. K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd.


Raheja Vihar, Main club House,
Chandivali Farm road,
Near chandivali Studio,
Mumbai 400 072

2) M/s. K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd


Raheja Tower Plot Np. 30 Block G,
Bandraa Kurla Comples, Bandra(E),
Mumbai 400 059

3) M/s. CLR facility Services Pvt.Ltd


401, Shivai Plaza, Near Ravi Vihar Hotel,
Sagbaug Road, Marol naka, Andheri (E),
Mumbai- 400 059.
` First Party

V/s.

Mr. Prakash N. Mudrale


C/o. Adv.A.K.Singh,
003/D-2,Ravi Aangan,
Gaurav Sankalp,Phase-I,
Near G.C Club,
Mira Road(E), Thane Second Party.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF FIRST PARTY NO. 3

The 1st party no 3 (herein after referred to as Contractor) most


respectfully submits as under:
1. The Contractor submit that the reference referred before this
Honble Court is mischievous, frivolous, vexatious, bad in
2

law, untenable, dubious and is deserved to be dismissed on


the following amongst the other grounds which are as under:
2. The 2nd party workman (hereinafter referred to as
workman) has not completed 240 days of continuous
service with the Contractor and on this ground itself, no
reliefs of reinstatement can be granted against the contractor.
The above issue goes to the root of the maintainability of the
reference and on this ground itself , the reference deserves to
be rejected. This Honble Court may kindly frame the
aforesaid issue as preliminary issue.
3. The workman has voluntarily stopped reporting for work on
and from 13.5.2015 and it is well settled law that when the
workman himself stops reporting for work, he cannot claim
for reinstatement and therefore on this ground also the
reference deserves to be dismissed .
4. It is well settled law that vague insinuations and surmises will
not entitle the second party workman for any reliefs and on
this ground also the prayers made in the statement of claim
deserves to be rejected.
The Respondent No.1 is developing a large project known as
Raheja Vihar situated at Chandivli Powai, through its
Proprietary Concerns/Divisions viz. (i) Powai Developers.
The said Project has been substantially developed and in the
final phase of development. While the Respondent
No.1/Developer is constructing the balance incomplete
buildings, it has (in the interim, pending completion of the
entire project) formed an Apex Body (comprising of its
representatives) to look after the maintenance of common
infrastructure (e.g. roads, garden, club-house etc.) in the
complex which activity will have to be gradually taken over
by the Housing Societies collectively and/or their
federation/Apex Society.
The said Apex Body who is ceased with the maintenance of
common infrastructure of Complex area, has appointed the
Contractor/Man Power Agencies (from time to time)to
provide facilities /services of the said Project. The Contractor
is one of the contractor, engaged by the Apex Body to look
after the said maintenance work in Raheja Vihar, by
3

entering into written work orders with him, and the workman
mentioned in the reference was working with the Contractor
and not with the 1st party no 1 and 2.
As per the work order executed between the Apex Body and
the Contractor, the Contract fees are paid to the concerned
Contractor for executing their scope of maintenance work.
The Contractor get the work executed through their
employees and pay wages /salaries to them. Thus the 1st party
nos 1 and 2 have absolutely no nexus of employment with
the workman employed by the Contractor for executing their
scope of contractual work in the Complex area and the
workmen hired/employed by the Contractor including the
workman in the present reference are neither the employees
of the said Apex Body nor of 1st party nos 1 and 2.
Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, contractor would
like to deal with the parawise reply to the main complaint as
under:

a) With reference to para 1 and 2 of the Statement of


claim, the third party submits that the 1st party no 3 is a
Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 and is engaged by the Apex body to do the
maintenance work in a large project known as Raheja
Vihar whose site is reflected in the cause title of the
Statement of Claim i.e address mentioned under fisrt
party no. 1 through one of its divisions i.e Powai
developers and the said project has been substantially
developed and most of the completed buildings are
fully occupied by the apartment purchasers and co-
operative housing societies (formed by the Apartment
purchasers)are already managing the affairs of such
buildings including common areas therein. The Apex
Body has appointed first party no. 3 to look after the
complex maintenance work on payment of contract
fees for executing the scope of work as per the work
orders executed between the Apex Body and the
contractor . The second party workman is employed
by the contractor and is not employed by KRCPL i.e
4

first party no 1 and 2 nor by the Apex Body. The


workman is paid remuneration by the contractor and
there is no privity of contract between KRCPL and
second party .The first party no. 2 is having its head
office at the address mentioned below the name of the
first party no. 2 in the cause title of the statement of
claim. The contractor vehemently denies that the
second party was working with them continuously and
permanently without any break since 1/2/1997. The
contractor submits that the alleged fact of name the
allegations made against KRCPL and therefore the
Contractor does not wish to offer his comments on the
same. The contractor vehemently denies that his
services were transferred from M/s. Hillcrest
Developers, M/s Powai Developers , M/s. Impressions
Service Lt. or any other division of KRCPL The
contractor denies that the second party was working
since last many years, in fact he was working since
November 2014. M/s. CLR Facility Services Pvt. Ltd
(Contractor) is a Private Limited Co. and KRCPL is
one of the clients [ there are written orders of
Contractor with Apex Body and Apex Body makes the
payments of the contract fees to the Contractor for
doing all the work of housekeeping, electrician,
plumber work, etc and for providing all the facilities
on the site. Mr. Gautam Phatak is the Director of the
Contractor and has no nexus with KRCPL or Apex
Body.The contractor denies that it is a division of
KRCPL and also denies the allegations of sham and
bogus contractors made therein. The second party was
paid the salary by Contractor and salary slips have also
been handed over to the second party which were
never signed by him. The Contractor is engaged in
less than 10 workman for providing the work of
facility services at the site. The Contractor further
denies that the second party was working under the
complete supervision and control of KRCPL and
further denies that the second partys name has been
5

shown in different so called sham and bogus


contractors in order to deprive the second party from
statutory benefits as alleged. The first party no 3 i.e
Contractor denies that the second partys name shown
in different companies and submits that it has never
received any enquiry from the second party as he had
voluntarily stopped reporting for work at the site on
and from 13.5.2015 and therefore the question of
telling him that his service conditions would not be
affected, he will be entitled to all the benefits and will
be treated as permanent employee of KRCPL does not
arise at all. Moreover the question of even giving him
the said assurances by the Contractor does not arise as
he was directly working under the Contractor since
Nov 2014. The First party no 3 denies that the 2nd party
workman has ever requested them not to show his
name in different companies and on that they have got
annoyed and threatened to terminate his services
without following due process of law. The 1st party
submits that the above allegation is false, baseless and
without any proof
b) With reference to para 3 of the Statement of claim, the
contractor submits that till 12.05.2015 the workman
reported for work at the site of Raheja Vihar
however, on and from 13.05.2015 the workmen
stopped reporting for work and therefore, the denial of
allegation of oral termination with effect from
13.05.2015 is false and baseless. Thereafter the
contractor issued warning letter dated 18.05.2015
asking him to come and report at work site inspite of
the fact that it was not the legal obligation to do so as
the said workman has not completed 240 days of
continous service and the said letter was received by
the workmen on 21.05.2015. However, workmen did
not report at the work site nor replied to the said letter.
Thereafter, contractor has issued another letter dated
20.05.2015 calling him to report for work and the said
letter was been returned by him with remarks
6

Unclaimed. The workmen has not reported for work


inspite of issuance of the letters. The contractor states
that he has engaging less that 10 workmans at Raheja
Vihar site. The Contractor submits that all the
allegations made therein are baseless, false, imaginary,
and vague and holds no water and thus denied.
c) With reference to para 4 of the Statement of claim, the
contractor denies that the workman has tried to report
for his duties and further denies any blank assurances
given by the contractor. As the workman has never
reported on the site on and from 13.5.2015, the
question of not allowing him to work at the site does
not arise at all. The contractor has received demand
letter dated 13.07.2015 which was replied vide letter
dated 28.07.2015 in which the contractor has denied
all the allegations made against him by the workman.
The workman has initially joined the contractor as
electrician however, he has suppressed the fact from
the contractor that he did not have an electric license
but when he was asked by Mr. Vrindavan Bhosle,
Operation Technical Manager somewhere in the month
of February 2015, he admitted that he did not have
electric license and requested the contractor to allow
him to work as a helper at the salary applicable to the
respective grade and as per his request, on the
compassionate ground the contractor allowed him to
work at the site at the salary grade of helper.
d) With reference to para 5 of the Statement of claim, the
contractor does not desire to offer the comments on
respect of his business of KRCPL .
e) With reference to para 6 of the Statement of claim, the
contractor denies that the services of the workmen are
terminated illegally and deny that the action is
unattainable ,bad in law ,improper, arbitrary,
unjustified and is violation of principles of natural
justice. The contractor further submits that the
workmen has not completed 240 days of his continued
services and therefore, question of applicability of
7

section 25 F, G, H of the IDA Act,1947 does not arise


at all and moreoever the relief of reinstatement cannot
be granted to the said workman. The Contractor further
denies the fact of alleged illegal termination and
alleged non - compliance of section 66 of Bombay
Compliance Act.
f) With reference to para 7 of the Statement of claim, the
contractor submits that as the workman has not even
worked for 240 days the payment of question of bonus,
leave wages does not arises at all. Even the workman
were never asked to work over time, so the question to
pay the workman for over time also does not arise at
all. Therefore, all the allegations made by the
workmen are false, baseless after thought. The
contractor further denies the allegations regarding the
non payment of O.T , leave wages, bonus , statutory
benefits, etc as the workmen has himself stopped
reported for work from 13.05.2015.
g) With reference to para 8 of the Statement of claim, the
contractor denies the fact of alleged illegal
termination of workman w.e.f 13.5.2015 and states that
they have replied to letter dated 13.05.2015 of the
workman vide letter dated 28.07.2015 and has placed
their stand of non reporting for work by the said
workman in the said letter. The Contractor craves
leave to refer to and rely upon the documents at the
time of hearing.
h) With reference to para 9 of the Statement of claim,
the contractor submits that he denies the fact that the
workman was not gainfully employed from the date of
his not reporting for work i.e 13.05.2015 till date. It is
practically not possible to live in a Metropolitan city
like Mumbai without any earning and therefore, the
said fact is completely false and unbelievable .
i) With reference to para 10 of the Statement of claim,
the contractor submits that the contractor has
participated in the conciliation proceedings through
Mr. Sunil Maben and has placed the stand of the
8

contractor before the conciliation officer. Further the


contractor also submits that he has stated in his reply
letter dated 28.07.2015 that he has called the workmen
to report for work, though it was not legally binding on
the contractor but inspite of the same the workman has
not reported for work till date.
j) With reference to para 11 of the Statement of claim,
the contractor submits that in view of the above factual
and legal position, the prayers made in the statement of
claim as well as the demand raised in the demand and
justification statement deserves to be rejected in toto.

MUMBAI:
DATED: 21.12.2016 For 1st party no 3

VERIFICATION

I, Mr Chandrashekhar S Dhivar , for the 1st party no 3 above


named do hereby state and verify that whatever stated
hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

Mumbai:

Dated: -21.12.2016 (Chandrashekhar Dhivar)