* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.22947/2005
% 12th January, 2011
VIVEK METAL INDUSTRIES ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.M.Sinha, Adv.
VERSUS
P.O.L.C & ORS ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Adv.
for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By order dated 21.1.2010, the petitioner was directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/- to the workman within four weeks. Today, even after one year, these litigation expenses have not been paid although the subsequent order dated 28.5.2010 notices this position and once again on 28.5.2010 four weeks time was granted. Today, the counsel for the petitioner seeks to give a pay order of Rs.7500/-, No. 985289 of Bank of Baroda which is dated 22.5.2010, and which obviously is an expired pay order. Quite clearly, the petitioner is WPC No 22947/2005 Page 1 of 4 wasting the time of this court and accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,500/- to the respondent, litigation expenses of Rs.7500/- be now positively tendered to the workman through his counsel within a period of four weeks from today.
2. By means of the present writ petition challenge is laid by the management to the impugned award dated 23.8.2004 whereby the respondent/workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages last drawn by him for the intervening period till the reinstatement.
3. Counsel for the petitioner urges before this court that the respondent was never employed by the petitioner and attention of this court is invited to page no.41 of the paper-book which is a challan for deposit of E.S.I dues. Counsel for the petitioner argued that this document contains the list of workmen and this list does not include the name of the respondent/workman. A reference to this document however shows that there is no list with this document and the document itself does not contain name of such a single workman.
4. I am of the opinion that the present petition is a gross abuse of the process of law. The fact of the matter is that the workman was injured while working for the petitioner and instead of being sympathetic by giving the expenses for treatment, the workman was instead terminated from service. Not only that, the petitioner has WPC No 22947/2005 Page 2 of 4 falsely denied that the respondent was never in the employment of the petitioner. This aspect as to whether the respondent was or was not in the employment of the management has been dealt with by the trial court in para-8 of the impugned judgment and the same reads as under:-
"8. Although, claimant admitted that he has no documents to prove that he was working with the management, but the report of the Labour Inspector proved by as Ext WW1/14 is the only Documents Proved Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Labour Inspector wherein there was admission before the Labour Inspector made by the management that claimant was working with them for the last one year and he suffered injuries on his right hand while working on the machine. This report is also signed by the another Labour Inspector who also visited the premises of the management with Labour Inspector ww2, Ramesh Kumar on complaint WW1/13 on which basis report Ex.WW/1/14 was submitted by him. WW 3 is another Labour Inspector who proved his report as Ex. WW14 dt. 21.10.98 regarding accident with claimant. In this report also the management verbally told that accident did take place but management did not show any record to the Labour Inspector."
5. It is therefore quite clear that before two Labour Inspectors who visited the petitioner premises, the petitioner had at that time admitted the respondent to be the workman. The petitioner management cannot therefore act dishonestly and take advantage of its own wrong because it has not shown the respondent as a workman.
In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award, more so considering the dishonest and the malafide WPC No 22947/2005 Page 3 of 4 stand of the petitioner. The petition is therefore dismissed. It is clarified that the respondent/workman will be entitled to payment of the litigation expenses and the cost of Rs.2500/- imposed vide today's order in addition to the consequences as flowing from the impugned award.
The petition is therefore disposed of as dismissed. CM No. 15061/2005 Interim orders stand vacated.
CM stands disposed of.
JANUARY 12, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J
ib
WPC No 22947/2005 Page 4 of 4