Affidavits must be signed in presence of the counsel to maintain integrity; improper signing procedures can invalidate the affidavit's value.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Managements of Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 challenging the Award dated 07th September, 2019 passed by the Labour Court-V, Rouse Avenue Court Complex (hereinafter "Labour Court") in ID No.2170/17 titled Sh. Rajender Singh v. M/s. KBT Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

3. The background of the case is that the Respondent/Workman was employed with the Petitioners/Managements as a field worker at a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The dispute arises out of the alleged illegal termination of the Workman's services by the Management on 22nd July, 2016. Thereafter, on 22nd July, 2017, the Workman filed his claim petition before the Labour Court. The case of the Workman is that he joined services with the Management on 1st April, 2007, after which the Management failed to provide benefits such as appointment letter, weekly and yearly leave, overtime allowance, bonus etc. When the aforementioned benefits were demanded by the Workman, his services were illegally terminated on 22nd July, 2016 without any notice and payment of earned wages for the period between 1st May, 2016 to 21st July, 2016. It was also averred by the Workman that the Managements' firms are being run by the same owners and the Workman was forced to work for both the firms.

4. On the other hand, the case of the Management is that the Workman was employed with the Petitioner No.1 on 1st December, 2010 and has been absconding from his duties from 31st July, 2012 onwards, without any notice. It is submitted that the Workman again approached the Management to join his duties and was reemployed on 11th November, 2014. However, the Workman misappropriated an amount of Rs.20,000/- belonging to the Petitioner No.1 and thereafter, absconded from service yet again in July, 2016. Thus, it is the stand of the Management that the Workman's services were terminated by the Management and the Workman left the job of his own accord.

5. Vide impugned Award dated 07th September, 2019, the Labour Court has, after holding that the Respondent/Workman was an employee of both the Petitioners/Managements and that the Petitioner No.2 had intentionally concealed true facts from the Court, directed Petitioner No.l to reinstate the Workman with back wages equivalent to 1.5 times of the wages payable to a skilled worker. Further, the Labour Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation to the Workman for harassment, illegal termination and legal costs. The operative portion of the impugned Award dated 7th September, 2019 is extracted below:

""ISSUE No.2 : RELIEF

46. In view of the discussion made while deciding issue no.1 whereby the court has given a finding to the effect that the claimant was an employee of both the managements but the management no.2. intentionally has not come with clean hands before the court in this respect by denying the relationship, it is very much clear that the claimant was provided salary by the management no.1 only but being made to work with both the managements and as such he is entitled to salary from both the managements and in these circumstances, the court deems it fit to hold that the claimant is entitled to a salary as applicable to a skilled worker plus further half salary as applicable to a skilled worker i.e. one and a half time salary of a skilled worker per month, on account of being employed by two managements at the same time.

47. Hence, the claimant is held ent