Delhi High Court
Jaiswal Art Press Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Government Of The National ... on 22 March, 2002
Author: V Sen
Bench: V Sen
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. This case exemplified the ingenuity of the
human mind. Although some disputes in the family of the
Jaiswals appear to have occurred which had resulted in
proceedings being initiated under the Companies Act, by
pankaj Jaiswal against his father and the siblings,
those proceedings are of little relevance to the
Respondent's claim that he had been employed by the
Jaiswal Art press private Limited, the Writ petitioner
herein. Jaiswal Art press private Limited is na
incorporated Company of which Shri Hansraj Jaiswal,
petitioner No. 2, is the Managing Director. He has
deposed, as the Management's Witness. The claim of the
Workman was that after working as a deriver with the
petitioner No. 1 for six years on a monthly salary of
Rs. 1350/-, his services were abruptly terminated. He
remained unemployed and eked out a living on the mercy
and largesse of the working-members of his family
including his brother. He had also sought to meet his
family's needs by assisting his father in his tailoring
business.
2. The defense of the Writ petitioner/Management,
from a perusal of its Written Statement before the
Conciliation Officer, Karampura, New Delhi, in essence
is twofold. Firstly, that the Respondent Workman Madan
Pal is not a Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Dispute Act and secondly that he was
never employed with the petitioner/Management. Keeping
in view the nature of the evidence led before the Labour
Court it is indeed significant that in the Written
Statement it has not been stated that the Workman was,
in fact, employed as a driver in Pankaj Trading Company,
which allegedly is owned by the son of Hansraj Jaiswal,
namely pankaj Jaiswal. In the circumstances of the
case, the petitioner could have easily mentioned this
fact in the Written Statement and not taken the Workman
by surprise by mentioning these alleged facts in his
supposition, for the first time. It is indeed difficult
to appreciate that this line of evidence was permitted
by the presiding Officer of the Labour Court since it is
trite to state that evidence must be predicated on and
conform strictly to pleadings.
3. Be that as it may, the Labour Court has
unequivocally found that the relationship of an employer
and employee between the Workman, Shri Madan Pal and M/s
Jaiswal Art press Private Limited exists. In writ
proceedings it would be inappropriate for the High Court
to differ form these findings of facts; that would be
possible in the rarest of cases where the finding is
totally perverse. In the present petition, having
considered all the aspects of the case, I am of the
opinion that this conclusion of the Labour Court is
fully correct. The hesitancy to state in the pleadings
itself on behalf of the petitioner that he Respondent
was a Workman of the son of Petitioner No. 2 is
manifestly evident. Had such an averment been dealt
with, ti may well have transferred the liability to he
son, and this would obviously serve no useful purpose
for the Jaiswal family, even if it is assumed that
family disputes had actually arisen. I may in also
briefly refer to the Compromise which was effected in
the Company proceedings before this Court. The
compromise was recorded before the Division Bench in
Company Appeal No.11/1995 on September 25, 1997, i.e.
after the passing of the impugned Award dated 29.5.1997.
It would be reasonable to be expected for the petitioner
to have recorded in the compromise application that the
liability under the impugned Award should be assumed by
his son, namely Pankaj Jaiswal. This exposes the
falsity of writ petition. Salary vouchers have been
duly proved by the respondent workman pertaining to the
petitioner Company.
4. In the impugned Award the Workman has been
granted reinstatement with continuity of service and
full back wages. I find no error in the impugned Award.
5. The petition i dismissed with costs of
Rs. 3000/-.
