Delhi Agricultural Marketing B. vs Satya Pal Singh Dabas And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 833 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the counsel for parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. This writ petition challenges the award dated 30. 1. 2002 by the Labour Court which on finding that compliance of Section 25F was not done, directed reinstatement of respondents No. 1 & 2 but with only 50% back wages. It was found that (a) the respondent s had worked since 1990 to August 1993 (b) their services were terminated without notice.

4. The principal plea raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Labour Court did not decide the question whether the petitioner is an industry. The Trial Court has held that the management has failed to adduce any evidence to show that it was not covered within the meaning of definition of 'industry' as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the management failed to cross examine the workman and had been proceeded ex-parte. Accordingly, there is no merit in the plea of the petitioner that the labour court erred in not deciding the issue. Since, the petitioner choose not to cross examine the deponent, it cannot fault the labour court for recording that on the issue of whether the petitioner was an 'industry' no evidence was led by the petitioner/management. Even taking into account the pleas raised by the petitioner that it is a statutory body and not carrying on business or production, supply or distribution of goods and is engaged in establishment of marketing committees, the petitioner's activities clearly falls within the definition of 'industry' according to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in , Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa & Ors. In any event, this plea of the petitioner is not open to the petitioner as the petitioner did not produce any evidence to substantiate this plea such a contention in any event is baseless apart from the fact that the petitioner has chosen to be negligent by remaining absent. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

5. The petitioner in the writ petition has given no reason whatsoever for its absence in the labour Court leading to the award and accordingly the unrebutted testimony of the respondents was rightly accepted by the labour Court. The counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the finding on merits also but since no explanation at all has given for the petitioner's absence in the Labour Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to urge the pleas on merits which could have been met by its presence in the Labour Court.

6. Since the petitioner did not appear in the Labour Court after filing its reply, it has become unnecessary to consider the order relied upon by the petitioner in .

7. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.