Reply on behalf of respondent to claim application under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954
0 of 26 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF Name of the court/authority
Office address of the deputy labour commissioner
S&E/SED/Case number/Case year
IN THE MATTER OF:
Claimant's name: CLAIMANT
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
N.D.O.H.: Next date of hearing
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE Respondent's name AGAINST A CLAIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE CLAIMANT NAMELY Claimant's name UNDER THE DELHI SHOPS & ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1954.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1.That the claimant has filed the present complaint against the respondent, and the same is fixed for hearing on Date fixed in paragraph 1.
2.That it is submitted at the outset that the present claim is bad in law, as it has been issued under provisions of law which are not applicable to the respondent. The respondent is an individual and not a shop or establishment, and is therefore not covered under the enactments referred to in the claim. The claim, as framed, deserves to be recalled on this score alone, and the very issuance of the claim is bad in law. Any pursuance of this claim would lead to unwarranted harassment of the respondent, for which the respondent may be constrained to initiate proceedings and pursue other remedies against the claimant, and to claim damages from the claimant personally, as the claimant is acting beyond the law.
3.That the respondent recently superannuated as an Indian Revenue officer. The claim under reply has been issued without verification of facts and in haste. The respondent is thus constrained to state that, without verifying the true facts, the issuing authority has issued a notice which is bad in law and has caused harassment and great mental agony to the respondent, who has had a distinguished career as a Class I officer of the Government of India. It is most respectfully submitted that in December Year claimant first approached respondent, the claimant, who had come through the Name of the app through which claimant came App, showed keenness to join as a full-time driver with the respondent, and sent his terms through WhatsApp, which were agreed to, and thereafter he was engaged in Month of engagement. In the first week of joining, the claimant stated that he had lost his mobile phone and requested the respondent to help him by contributing Amount given towards mobile phone towards the purchase of a new mobile phone, which amount was given to him. Thereafter, within a couple of months, he again stated that he wished to purchase a motorcycle, as he had no means of conveyance, and Name of relative who made the transfer handed over Amount transferred for motorcycle to him by way of online transfer. The duty hours agreed upon were from Agreed duty start time to Agreed duty end time, with overtime at Overtime rate per additional hour per additional hour, along with reimbursement of food; the respondent settled the accounts on a daily basis through Paytm or in cash. Records of the payments made towards settlement of accounts can be produced, if so desired.
4.That the conduct of the claimant was consistently cantankerous and aggressive towards the respondent, Name of respondent's sister, the respondent's daughter and other persons in the society. Several complaints against him were raised by the neighbours and guards on account of his bad behaviour and aggressive nature. Even while driving, he would drive rashly and pick up fights with other drivers. He explained his bitter temperament as arising out of hardships in his life, and the respondent tolerated him on humanitarian grounds. The respondent's sister, namely Ms. Name of respondent's sister, was badly treated by him. She also found him to be drinking while on duty in the afternoon, on account of which she stopped travelling with him as her driver. He frequently took leave, and at the last moment would call and say that he was unable to come as he was unwell. There are WhatsApp chats to this effect. The respondent never deducted any amount towards excessive leave and always paid his full salary. He stated that his mother was ill, was on medication, and that he was the only person available to take care of her; consequently, whenever he asked for advance salary, the respondent transferred the same instantly without any question. Screenshots of the transactions and conversations are available as evidence.
5.That there were never any terms of bonus or notice period of one month (though the respondent informed him one month in advance to quit, after adjustment of the advance). The respondent liberally gave him money on all festivals, occasions and birthdays. Despite all the financial assistance, and unlimited leave on account of medical issues concerning himself and his mother, the behaviour of the claimant was absolutely deplorable. The respondent could not have continued to engage him on account of his terrible attitude and mannerisms, and accordingly informed him of her decision to discontinue his services in advance on Date respondent informed claimant of discontinuation. He had been paid advance salary till Date till which advance salary was paid; an amount of Amount of final payment was again paid to him on Date of final payment. No dues were payable to him.
6.That it is submitted that the present claim application is bad in the eyes of law, as it has been issued under the wrong provisions of law.
7.That the respondent is thus constrained to state that, without verifying the true facts, the issuing authority issued a notice which is bad in law and has also caused harassment and great mental agony to the respondent, who has had a distinguished career as a Class I Officer in the Government of India.
8.That the proceedings initiated before the Learned Labour Inspector were thoroughly investigated and were 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 proceedings before the Learned Labour Inspector, the claimant approached the Learned Conciliation Department. The respondent provided a comprehensive submission outlining the facts and reiterating the position that the allegations lack merit and are not supported by any 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. The respondent invites attention to the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 1527 (Chief Commissioner, Delhi vs. Federation of Indian Chambers). This citation clearly establishes the boundaries of applicability of these enactments, and reinforces the respondent's assertion that the claim is misplaced.
10.It is submitted that the present claim is an attempt to harass the respondent, there being no substantial grounds for the allegations made. The continued pursuit of this matter, despite previous findings, appears to be a strategy to create undue stress upon the respondent rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
11.That it is vehemently denied that any amount is due to the claimant. The entire complaint is malicious and deserves to be dismissed forthwith.
PRAYER:
In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Authority may graciously be pleased to:
(a)dismiss the claim of the claimant on the grounds of lack of merit and as an abuse of the legal process, and deny the relief claimed in the prayer clause of the application;
(b)dismiss the application in view of the submissions made above, with heavy costs;
(c)pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the answering respondent, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
Respondent's name
Place | Date of reply
THROUGH
(Advocate's name)
ADVOCATE
Email ID: Advocate's email ID