The website contains all the orders and judgements passed by the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi starting March 2017.
Showing posts with label Misc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misc. Show all posts
Monday, December 2, 2019
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Raj Kamal Narayan Vs. Ajay Kamal Narayan & Anr | Case No. 1037/1061/2019/07/6359-6362 | Dated:09.10.2019
In
the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National
Capital Territory of Delhi
25-
D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04,
Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court
under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 1037/1061/2019/07/6359-6362 Dated:09.10.2019
In the matter of:
Sh. Raj
Kamal Narayan,
B-30/1, 1st Floor, Gali No-6
New Modern Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ............Complainant
B-30/1, 1st Floor, Gali No-6
New Modern Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ............Complainant
Versus
Sh. Ajay Kamal
Narayan,
B-30/1,
2nd Floor, Gali No-6
New
Modern Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ......Respondent No. 1
Sh. Vijay Kamal
Narayan,
B-30/1,
Ground Floor, Gali No-6
New
Modern Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ......Respondent No. 2
Last date of Hearing: 01.10.2019
Present: Sh. Raj Kamal Narayan,
Complainant
Sh.
Ajay Kamal Narayan, Respondent No. 1
Sh.
Vijay Kamal Narayan, Respondent No. 2
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person with 90% locomotor disability vide
his complaint dated 12.06.2019 submitted that he is a Government teacher posted
in Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi.
He purchased a property measuring about 50 Sq. Yd. consisting of one and
a half storey building at B-30/1, 2nd Floor, Gali No-6, New Modern Shahdara,
Delhi-110032 in 2004 with his own funds.
He subsequently, constructed upto 3rd floor with the personal
loan taken from the bank and personal savings in 2013. He is single and permitted his younger
brothers Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan and Sh. Ajay Kamal Narayan to reside in the
said house. Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan stays
on the ground floor with his family and Ajay Kamal Narayan on the second floor
and he, himself stayson the first floor of the house.
2. The complainant alleged that the behaviour of Sh. Vijay Kamal
Narayan and his family members had not been good towards him and had a mala
fide intention to grab his property. He
also alleged that Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan, who is also a Govt. teacherin
Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi used to pressurize him to transfer 50% portion
of the said property in his name otherwise he may be implicated in false
criminal cases. The complainant had conveyed
to him that after his death, the property would be equally distributed between his
two younger brothers,Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan and Sh. Ajay Kamal Narayanas he has
no legal heir except them. However, on
31.05.2018, Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan and his family members started quarrelling
with the complainant. He called his
youngest brother, Sh. Ajay Kamal Narayan and other respectable persons of the
locality and got the ground floor vacated.
They shifted to a tenanted house in Dilshad Colony. The complainant put some articles and
valuables in one room of the ground floor and locked two rooms after taking
peaceful and vacant possession of the premises.Hefurther submitted that he also
used to get the house cleaned and often used it as guest room.
3. On 10.06.2019 at around 12.30 PM, Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan and
his wife visited him when he was alone in the house. He alleged that while he welcomed them into
his first floor house and served them cold drink, within 15 minutes his brother
and his wife came out of the room and started manhandling him. Their children
namely Ms. AmbikaTyagi, Ms. Radhika Tyagi and Master Rohan Tyagi forcefully
entered and trespassed the ground floor and illegally took its possession by
breaking the locks of the two rooms. They
also removed the valuable articles worth Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant called the police on 100 at
around 01.30 PM. After he narrated the incident, the police informed him that as
the matter was of civil nature, they could not help much and advised him to
approach Civil Court. He also went to
the Police Station Thana- Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi. However, the police did not register any FIR. This encouraged Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan and
his wife who used derogatory words against him and threatened him and claimed,
“POLICE HAMNE KHARID RAKHI HAI. AGAR JYADA SHOR KIA TO TUJHE BHI JAAN SE MAAR
DENGE”.
4. On 11.06.2019, Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan again came alongwith
his other household items in small truck and forcefully put his household items
in 2 rooms. His youngest brother Sh.
Ajay Kamal Narayan also dialled the police on 100 from his mobile. The PCR came and after he narrated the
incident, they also advised to approach Civil Court. Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan and his family
members including his wife threatened him to implicate him in false sexual
harassment case and also of dire consequences.
The police officials of Mansarovar Park, Shahdara refused to receive the
written complaint of the complainant.
5. In view of the above, the complainant requested in his
complaint addressed to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to
take appropriate action against Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan, his wife
MeenakshiTyagi and his children Ms. AmbikaTyagi, Ms. Radhika Tyagi and Master
Rohan Tyagi as per the law. A copy of the said complaint was also marked to
DCP, ACP and the SHO,Mansarovar Park,ShahdaraDistrict.
6. The complaint was receivedin this court on 18.07.2019 from the
Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities andwas taken up with
the respondents vide showcause-cum-hearing notice dated 07.08.2019 and a
hearing was fixed on 05.09.2019.
7. Sh. Ajay Kamal Narayan, respondent No. 1 in his reply dated
02.09.2019 has confirmed the contents of the complaint dated 12.06.2019.
8. Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan, respondent No. 2 vide his reply dated
nil received on 29.08.2019 has denied the allegations and has submitted inter-alia
that he is working as a Govt. teacher since 1992. The said property atB-30/1, Gali No-6 New
Modern Shahdara, Delhi-110032, was bought in 2004out of the income of the joint
family consisting of the three brothers and their father who was alive thenand
by taking loan which was repaid by him as well.
The reconstruction of the house in 2013 was also done with his income
and the income of the joint family. His
father gave him the possession of ground floor in 2004. He or his family members have never misbehaves
with his elder brother nor have they threatened him. He has equal share in the
said property and they were all living in the joint family peacefully. He shifted to the other house on rent as the
education of his children was getting affected due to frequent quarrels in the
house. He often used to go to the houseand
clean it. The allegation of beating,
abusing threatening etc. are false, when the police came to the spot and
enquired about the matter, they found that the articles inside the house on the
ground floor belonged to him and the police left after counselling and advising
them not to disturb the peace. The
respondent No. 2 has further submitted that he has been handing over his income
to his father, and subsequently as per his directions, to his elder brother Sh.
Raj Kamal Narayan since his initial days of service in 1992. As Sh. Raj Kamal Narayan was the eldest among
the brothers and a divorcee with disability.
The General Power of Attorney of the said house was therefore done in
the name of Sh. Raj Kamal Narayan.Sh. Sri Pal Bhati from whom the house was
bought, made a ‘Will’ in the name of their father Sh. Jai Prakash Narayan which
is available with the complainant.
9. Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan vide his two letters dated 30.09.2019
also submitted that the statement of the complainant that he paid him Rs. 10
Lakh for his businessis false. Sh. Ajay Kamal Narayan and his wife had two
companies namelyVardhman Engineering Works, Krishna Vihar, 44/15, BehtaHajipurLoni,
Ghaziabad & Jai Durga Metalizing, Krishna Vihar, 44/15, BehtaHajipurLoni,
Ghaziabad which had no connection with him.
The said Rs. 10 Lakhwas given by the complainant to Sh. Ajay Kamal
Narayan, respondent No. 1 and not to him.
Vide his second letter, he submitted that the complainant has filed CS
no. 678/2019Raj Kamal Narayan Vs. Vijay Kamal Narayan in District and Sessions
Judge, Shahdara, Karkardoomaon the same issue.
10. The complainant vide his letter dated 05.09.2019 has submitted
15 documents which include a copy of General Power of Attorney, Will deed,
Agreement, Witness Deed, Affidavit, Sale Agreement (Sole Deed), Receipt, Call
100 Number on 10.06.2019 and or 11.06.2019, Aadhar Card, Election ID Card,
Property Tax Receipt, Electricity Bill, Photographs, Disability Certificate and
Employee Details.
11. During the hearing on 05.09.2019, the complainant, Sh. Raj Kamal Narayan reiterating his
written submissions added thatbecause of the misbehaviour of Sh. Vijay Kamal
Narayan, his wife and his children, he often gets humiliated and hurt. After he was manhandled by the son of Sh.
Vijay Kamal Narayan, he was forced to report the matter to police. He otherwise has no problem withhis brothers
living with him in his house. It is
because of the disrespect and the ill-treatment meted out to him that he wants
Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan to leave the house, else he himself may have to leave
and stay elsewhere. He also produced
some photographs of the ground floor house to show that it was empty before Sh.
Vijay Kamal Narayan returned on 10.06.2019 after staying away for 13 months.
12. Sh. Vijay
Kamal Narayan, respondent No. 2 on other hand submitted that he or his family
has no dispute with his elder brother.
He, with his family shifted to Dilshad Garden on a rented house as his
daughter was taking some tuitions. He returned
with his family after 13 months but the complainant did not allow him to enter
and calledthe police,who after enquiry,let him and his family enter the
house. He wants to stay in the house
peacefully. He also stated that he
contributed about Rs. Six Lakh for buying the house in question.
13. Sh. Ajay
Kamal Narayan, respondent No. 1stated that the statement made by Sh. Vijay
Kamal Narayan was not correct. In fact,
Sh. Raj Kamal Narayan helped both of them.
He met their expenses during the last 32 years and also lent about Rs. 10
Lakh for the business,which he and Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan were doing jointly. Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan,however denied their statements.
14. After
hearing the parties, they were informed about the provisions of Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and were advised to sort out the matter
amicably and if necessary, with the help of their near relatives like Sisters,
Brothers-in-law and uncle and intimate the outcome to this court by 09.09.2019.
15. On the
next date of hearing on 01.10.2019, the parties submitted that their uncle
(Chacha Ji), BrijBhushanTyagi and the father-in-law of Sh. Vijay Kamal Narayan
and Ajay Kamal Narayan (their wives are sisters), Sh. Jaypal Singh Tyagi tried
to settle the matter on 15.09.2019. But
the matter could not be resolved as the complainant wanted Sh. Vijay Kamal
Narayan and his family to vacate thehouse.
16. The
complainant produced a photocopy of his
bank account in Vijaya Bank which shows that he had taken a personal loan of
Rs. 3 Lakhfrom the said bank on 26.09.2013.
As per him, he took that loan to build the second and the third floor of
the house. He further submitted that he
also invested Rs. 1,33,500/- that he received on Maturity of his PLI Policy
which was credited to his account on 14.02.2014.
17. Sh. Ajay Kamal Narayan, respondent No. 1 submitted that he is
prepared to vacate the house or pay the rent, which,though the complainant does
not take from him being his younger brother.
18. An attempt that the parties reach a compromise and avoid taking
matter to the courts, was made during the hearing also. However, they did not seem to come to any
meeting point.
19. It is observed from the General Power of Attorney that the
property no. B-30/1 situated in the area of VillageChandrawali,New Modern
Shahdara, Delhi is in favour of the complainant. Sh. Sri Pal Bhati s/o Sh. Raghubar Singh from
whom the said property was bought by the complainant, had also bequeathed that
after his death,the said property shall go and devolve to Sh. Raj Kamal Narayan
s/o Sh. Jai Prakash Narayan as per the Will Deed which is part of the Power of
Attorney.
20. The respondents have not produced any documents to show that the
property was bought out of the income of the Joint family or they contributed
in acquiring the said property in the name of the complaint. However, since the complainant has approached
the District and Sessions Judge (East) Karkardooma court, that Hon’ble court would
take a view in the matter. As regards,
the allegation of the complainant about his man-handling intimidation etc.against
respondent no. 2 and his family members and that the concerned police
functionaries did not register his compliant, DCP (Shahdara)is directed to
look into the matter and ascertain what action was taken by the police on the
compliant dated 12.06.2019 stated to have been submitted by the complainant to
DCP, ACP and SHO (Shahdara-Distt.), Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi and submit
an action taken report within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The concerned police functionaries/ IO be
deputed to contact the complainant and take appropriate action in accordance
with the provisions of Section 7 and Section 92 of the Act which are reproduced
below:-
“Section
7:(1) The appropriate Government shall take
measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence
and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall—
(a)
take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide
legal remedies available against such incidents;
(b)
take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its
reporting;
(c)
take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and
(d)
create awareness and make available information among the public.
(2)
Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that
an act of abuse, violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely
to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about
it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
such incidents occur.
(3)
The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate
steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order
as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an
order—
(a)
to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation
working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or
rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be;
(b)
for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person
so desires;
(c)
to provide maintenance to such person with disability.
(4)
Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of
abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform
the aggrieved person of—
(a)
his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the
particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide
assistance;
(b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
(b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
(c)
the right to free legal aid; and
(d)
the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law
dealing with such offence: Provided that nothing in this section shall be
construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to
proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission
of a cognizable offence.
(5)
If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes
an offence under the Indian Penal Code, or under any other law for the time
being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or
Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter.
Section
92:(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;
(b)
assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour
him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability.
….shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
21. The Legal Cell of the Office of the Commissioner of Police: Delhi
vide circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017 has directed all the DCsP to take
necessary action to make the IO aware of the provisions of the Act and to
ensure its effective implementation particularly with regardto the duties of
the Police Officers. The complainant is
also informed that Department of Law,Justice and Legislative Affairs, GNCT of
Delhi vide notification no.F.1/19/2018-Judl/Supdtlaw/1499-1507 dated 19.08.2019
has designated Additional Session Judge-02 in all the districts to try the
cases of offences of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 for the purpose of providing speedy trial in such matters.
22. Given
under my hand and the seal of the Court this 09th day of October,
2019.
(T.D.Dhariyal)
State Commissioner of Person with Disabilities
State Commissioner of Person with Disabilities
Copy to:Deputy Commissioner of Police (Shahdara), 469, Pila Mandir, Shalimar Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032:For action with respect to para 20 of the order.
Saturday, October 5, 2019
Vishal Gupta Vs. Executive Engineer (Electrical) SDMC | Case No. 1006/1111/2019/07/6319-6320 | Dated: 04.10.2019
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons
with Disabilities
National
Capital Territory of Delhi
25-
D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04,
Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 1006/1111/2019/07/6319-6320
Dated:
04.10.2019
In
the matter of:
Sh. Vishal Gupta,
J.E.
(Electrical)/CNZ
F-21,
St. No. 06, Brahmpuri,
Delhi
110053. ...........
Complainant
Versus
The Executive Engineer
(Electrical)
South
Delhi Municipal Corporation,
SDMC
Primary School,
Defence
Colony,
New
Delhi-110024. ........... Respondent
Last Date of Hearing 30.09.2019
Present: Sh.
Vishal Gupta, JE (E), complainant in person.
Sh. A.Z. Beg, Exe. Engineer
(Electrical) and Sh. Kushal Chawla, AEE/CNZ for respondent.
ORDER
The above named complainant, a
person with 54.9% hearing impairment vide his complaint dated 27.06.2019
submitted that he is working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in South Delhi
Municipal Corporation. He had certain
issues that made him mentally disturbed. He was under too much pressure and
stress and was fearing termination of his services. He felt harassed and resigned from the post
of Jr. Engineer (Electrical)/CNZ.
2. The
complainant addressed his representation to the Executive Engineer (Electrical),
SDMC Primary School, Defence Colony, New Delhi with a copy to this Court and
other officers/authorities in SDMC and Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. Vide
letter dated 05.07.2019, an action taken report was sought from the respondent,
who vide reply dated 19.07.2019, inter-alia submitted that the complainant was
working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis. He never brought his problem to his notice
before submitting the representation dated 27.06.2019. He also did not mention anything about the
allegations made in his representation when he submitted his resignation. He told him that complainant was resigning as
he wanted to prepare for competitive examinations for getting permanent Govt.
job and he was not satisfied with his contractual job. After receipt of the complaint, he personally
inquired into the working of Sh. Kushal Chawla, Assistant Engineer from all
other Junior Engineers (Electrical). All
of them strongly expressed their views that the allegations were found to be
false and fabricated. He also enclosed
the explanation/comments dated 17.07.2019 of Sh Kushal Chawla (AEE) including a
collective statement of seven Jr. Engineers working under him. They stated that the working and behaviour of
the Sh. Kushal Chawla has been very good, cordial and supportive and they have
no complaint or any issues with him.
4. In
his rejoinder dated 06.09.2019, the complainant submitted that he was not
satisfied with the reply and he should be given an opportunity of a
hearing. He also submitted that he has
requested for withdrawal of his resignation.
5. Upon
considering the written submissions, a hearing was scheduled on 30.09.2019. After
detailed interaction with the parties and perusal of record, it appeared that
there had been some communication gap between the complainant and his immediate
supervisor. A copy of his resignation
letter dated 11.06.2019 produced by the respondent, gives the personal reasons
for resigning with effect from 30.06.2019 (Evening). The complainant has also thanked
his seniors, staff and co-workers for their support. The said resignation was accepted by Commissioner,
SDMC vide order dated 24.07.2019.
6. The
respondent submitted that as the complainant’s contract was coming to an end on
30.06.2019 and in view of his request for resignation w.e.f. the same date, an
office order dated 07.08.2019 that the Commissioner, SDMC has terminated the
contract of the complainant with effect from 30.06.2019 was issued. They also clarified that there is no provision
for withdrawal of resignation by an employee of contract once the resignation
is accepted. It is for the Competent
Authority to consider his request. He
also submitted that he received an email dated 06.09.2019 from the complainant
requesting to allow him to withdraw his resignation which he submitted under
tremendous stress. He immediately informed the complainant that he should
pursue the matter with ADC, Engineer/HQ/SDMC as his Division has no authority
to take any action in the matter.
7. The
complainant stated that he wants to continue working in SDMC as he submitted
his resignation under stress.
8. It
appears that complainant submitted his resignation in haste and due to some
communication gap and misunderstanding. As his immediate superior officers
including Sh. Kushal Chawla have no issue with regard to his working and no
other person has been appointed/engaged in place of the complainant, it is
recommended that Commissioner, SDMC may consider re-engaging the complainant as
Jr. Engineer (Electrical) and have an action taken submitted to this Court within
a month of receipt of this order or by 31.10.2019 whichever is earlier.
9. Given
under my hand and the seal of the Court this 4th day of October,
2019.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities
Friday, October 4, 2019
Lalit Kumar Vs. New Delhi Institution of Management & Anr. | Case No. 796/1024/2019/03/6275-6277 | Dated:03.10.2019
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons
with Disabilities
National
Capital Territory of Delhi
25-
D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi
Phone-011-23216002-04,
Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 796/1024/2019/03/6275-6277 Dated:03.10.2019
In the matter of:
Sh. Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Latur Singh
D-85, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092 ...........Complainant
Versus
The Chairman,
New Delhi Institution of Management,
B-50 & B-60, Tughlakabad Institutional
Area,
Near Batra Hospital, New Delhi-110062 ….......…Respondent
No. 1
The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department
Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar
New Delhi-110062. ….......…Respondent No. 2
Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar
New Delhi-110062. ….......…Respondent No. 2
Date of hearing: 30.09.2019
Present: Sh. Lalit
Kumar alongwith Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Latur Singh, complainant
ORDER
The
above named complainant, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability in
his left upper limb and right lower limb vide his complaint dated 11.03.2019
submitted that he was working in New Delhi Institute of Management, F-13, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 as an Office Attendant since
18.08.2009. He was removed from service
on 20.07.2018 without any notice, payment of salary, Gratuity, P.F. &
arrears, etc. The action of the NDIM was
arbitrary, mala fide and intended to victimize a person with disability. He has also filed a complaint before the
Labour Court, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
2. The complaint was taken up with the
respondents vide notice 18.03.2019 under the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The complainant later on informed that the
institution at the given address had been closed and shifted to its new
location at B-50 and B-60, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, Near Batra
Hospital. A copy of the notice was
forwarded to the new address vide letter dated 08.05.2019.
3. Sh. V.K. Rao, Labour Officer (S) on
behalf of respondent No. 2 submitted vide reply dated 11.07.2019 that the
complainant had filed his grievance through a Labour Union in the office of the
Joint Labour Commissioner (Distt. South).
Concerned Labour Inspector took up the matter and an action taken report
was forwarded to the complainant with advice to file the claim for termination
before Conciliation Officer. As no
settlement could be arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings,
the matter was referred to the Hon’ble Labour Court, Room No. 307, Court
Complex, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi for adjudication vide a reference order no.
F-24(276)/Lab./SD/2019/15893-15895 dated 02.07.2019.
4. As there was no response from
respondent no. 1, a hearing was scheduled on 02.09.2019. During the hearing, Sh. Madan Kumar,
Administrative Officer appeared on behalf of Chairman, NDIM and submitted that
because of some bereavement in his family, advocate could not come and he
himself did not have any idea about the reason why the written submissions had
not been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.
He sought 20 days time to file written submissions.
5. Sh. K.M. Singh, Deputy Labour
Commissioner submitted that the reply dated 11.07.2019 has already been
submitted and now he has no role to play as the matter has been referred to
Hon’ble Labour Court for adjudication, which was accepted.
6. The complainant submitted that he is
out of job since August, 2018 and has a family comprising his wife and a
daughter to feed. He is completely
dependent on the disability pension Rs. 2500/- per month from the Department of
Social Welfare and the support from his parents.
7. It was brought to the notice to
respondent No. 1 that the Act has been enacted to give effect to the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its basic
principles are non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion
of persons with disabilities in the society among other things. Section 21 of the Act also mandates every
establishment including the private establishments that include NDIM to notify
Equal Opportunity Policy for Persons with Disabilities detailing measures
proposed to be taken to ensure and protect employment of persons with
disabilities. Rule 12 of the RPwD Rules,
2017 and the Delhi RPwD Rules, 2018 provide:-
“(1) Every establishment shall publish equal
opportunity policy for persons with disabilities within a period of six months
from the notification of these rules.
(2) The establishment shall display the equal
opportunity policy preferably on their website, failing which, at conspicuous
places in their premises.
(3) The equal opportunity policy of a private
establishment having twenty or more employees and the Government establishments
shall inter alia, contain the following, namely:-
(a) Facilities and amenities to be provided to
the persons with disabilities to enable them to effectively discharge their
duties in the establishment;
(b) list of posts identified suitable for
persons with disabilities in the establishment;
(c) the manner of selection of persons with
disabilities for various posts, post-recruitment and pre-promotion training,
preference in transfer and posting, special leave, preference in allotment of
residential accommodation if any, and other facilities;
(d) provisions for assistive devices, barrier-free
accessibility and other provisions for persons with disabilities;
(e) appointment of liaison officer by the
establishment to look after the recruitment of persons with disabilities and
provisions of facilities and amenities for such employees.
(4) The equal opportunity policy of the private
establishment having less than twenty employees shall contain facilities and
amenities to be provided to the persons with disabilities to enable them to
effectively discharge their duties in the establishment.”
8. Section 89 of the Act provides for
penalty which may extend to Rs. 5 Lakh for contravention of any provision of
the Act and Section 93 provides for fine for failure to furnish information
which is Rs. 25000/- in respect of each offence and in case of continued
failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/- for each
day of continued failure or refusal.
9. Respondent No. 1 was directed to
file his/her written reply by 09.09.2019 and also to make efforts to reinstate
the complainant at its main branch at Tuglakabad. It was also advised that in case it was not
possible to do so, then the complainants dues/compensation should be released
and an action taken report be submitted by 09.09.2019.
10. A copy of the RoP was also forwarded
to Sh. Vijay Singhal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi
with a request to dispose of the matter before him as early as possible,
considering the situation of the complainant.
11. Sh. R.K. Jaiswal, Authorized
Representative of NDIM on behalf of respondent No. 1 vide reply dated
14.09.2019 has submitted as under;
“In
the above case, as directed by your communication dated July 31, 2019, our
authorised representative was present in your court on Sep 2, 2019. A written reply documenting the relevant
facts is being submitted.
(i)
Mr. Lalit Kumar was employed
with ‘New Delhi Institution of Management’, F-13, Okhla Industrial Area, New
Delhi since Aug 2009. He was hired out
of our own will, without any compulsion, with full knowledge of his partial
disability and without any discrimination.
If the intent was ever to victimise Mr. Lalit Kumar for his disability
why would he be hired in the first place.
(ii)
During his tenure of service
with this office, he was given full salary and increments. He was given all other facilities at per with
other employees in a similar job role.
(iii)
In July 2018, Mr. Lalit Kumar
started taking extended, uninformed leaves from the office. When asked telephonically for his reason of
absence, because work was suffering badly, he kept quoting his mother’s cancer
treatment as his reason for continued unapproved absence and kept requesting
for additional leaves. A totally lenient
view, was taken in good faith to help him and his employment with this office
was kept active despite his continued unauthorised leave.
(iv)
Suddenly, one day Mr. Lalit
Kumar sent a legal notice alleging wrongful dismissal from service. The matter was heard in the office of the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushpa Vihar, Delhi. Since we had done nothing wrong, Mr. Lalit
Kumar’s false allegations were not entertained by the office of the Deputy
Labour Commissioner.
(v)
Mr. Lalit Kumar is misusing
his partial disability as a base to wrongly harass our office after he himself
decided to leave his job for reasons best known to him. If ever he was mistreated owing to his
disability why did he never file a single complaint in his 8+ years of service.
(vi)
Mr. Lalit Kumar has alleged
that he was not given salary and PF.
Each month for his entire duration of service, Mr. Lalit Kumar, was
given his full salary on time. His PF
has been duly deposited in his PE account each month. These records can be verified from his bank
statements and the PF office. This is
just an attempt by Mr. Lalit Kumar to harass our office and extract extra,
unfair, undue compensation. Mr. Lalit
Kumar has not raised any unpaid demand on our office. We are always open to consider any request
for the same as per law.
(vii) Mr.
Lalit kumar has never raised a formal request for Gratuity with our
office. All such requests received by
our office from other employees, have been honoured in accordance with the
applicable laws. It is wrong for Mr.
Lalit Kumar to approach the Hon’ble Court for Gratuity, when he never once
filed a claim for it with the employer.
Once his written request is received by our office, we will act upon it
as per applicable laws.
(viii) Mr.
Lalit Kumar left our office without giving even a single day’s notice. All employees of this office are required to
serve a minimum one month notice period or return one months’ salary in case
they leave without notice. Mr. Lalit
Kumar has done neither. Even if we had
to terminate Mr. Lalit Kumar’s services, the court would have directed to us to
give him 1-2 months of salary in lieu thereof.
We seek justice in your court to direct Mr. Lalit Kumar to pay our
dues.
(ix)
Mr. Lalit Kumar needs to be
proceeded against for trying to implicate use on entirely incorrect facts by
making false submissions before this Hon’ble Court. We pray to you for proceeding against him for
intentionally misleading the Hon’ble court.
(x)
Mr. Lalit Kumar is harassing
us and intentionally presenting a wrong and malicious picture of this office
and trying to spoil our image at multiple forums. We seek the Hon’ble Court’s permission to
proceed against Mr. Lalit Kumar in the relevant forums and courts as per
applicable laws.
(xi)
We have not received the
notice dated March 18, 2019 and May 8, 2019 (mentioned in your letter dated
July 31, 2019), else we would have filed our reply on receipt of the first
notice itself.
(xii) We
pray to this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the complaint of Mr. Lalit Kumar with
costs.
Yours
sincerely,
RK
Jaiswal
Authorised
Representative”
12. During the hearing on 30.09.2019, none
appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.
13. The complainant produced a copy of the
attendance register maintained by respondent No. 1 at its Okhla Location for
the month of July and August, 2018 to show that he attended office regularly at
Okhla branch upto 18.07.2018 and did not take any leave. His name was removed from the Attendance Register
for August, 2018. He further stated that
Sh. Jivesh Thakur, Accountant directed him to attend office at its new location
at Tuglakabad from 19.07.2018. As per
him, he attended office on 19.07.2018 at Tuglakabad up to 08.00 PM but he was
not able to mark his attendance as his name was not entered in the Attendance
Register. On 20.07.2018, he went to the
Okhla office and requested to retain him in that office. He was told that a decision would be taken by
the competent authority and he would be informed on telephone. However, he did not get any telephone for 3
days and when he personally went to Okhla Office, he was informed that he cannot
be retained in that office. He also
requested on telephone after a few days if he could join even at Tuglakabad, there
was no response. He was thus forced to
get out of job. The complainant is
prepared to work at Tuglakabad also even now.
14. In view of the submissions of the
parties and after going through the record, I reiterated my recommendation to
respondent No. 1 to reinstate the complainant and allow him to join the Institute
at Tuglakabad, if it is not possible at Okhla Branch. The complainant is advised to submit a
request application to respondent No. 1 to this effect by 04.10.2019. Respondent No. 1 should take a decision on it
and convey to the complainant in writing by 11.10.2019. If the complainant is taken back, he is
advised to perform his duties with sincerity. The parties may inform the Labour Court,
accordingly.
15. The service rendered by the
complainant in the institute should be counted for service benefits such as
Gratuity, etc.
16. The complaint is dispose of with the
direction to the parties to inform this court about the decision taken in the
matter as required under Section 81 of the Act.
17. Given under my hand and the seal of
the Court this 03rd day of October, 2019.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)