Delhi High Court
M/S Bentex Electronics vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 8 April, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) NO. 8001/2009
Date of Decision: 08.04.2009
%
M/S BENTEX ELECTRONICS .... Petitioner
Through Mr.A.K.Mishra, Advocate
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through Nemo.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest? NO
V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 29.1.2008 passed
by the learned Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts in ID No.8/06/96
titled Shri Mahesh Chander Vs. M/s Bentex Electronics.
2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has
answered the reference that the services of Sh.Mahesh Chander were
terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the petitioner /Management
w.e.f. 25.10.1995 and it did not accept the case put forward by the
petitioner/Management that the respondent/workman had of his own
resigned from the services of the petitioner/Management. With regard
to the question of reinstatement since the respondent was in judicial
custody in case FIR No.507/2006 under Section 302/34 IPC PS Uttam
Nagar since 10.6.2006 therefore, instead of ordering the reinstatement,
the learned Labour Court had granted a lump sum compensation of
Rs.75,000/- to the respondent /workman in lieu of reinstatement and
payment of back wages and other consequential benefits.
3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, has
challenged the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that
the respondent /workman has not stated in his examination in chief as
to who was the person who had taken his signature forcibly on the
resignation letter nor has he disclosed as to whether the documents
which were signed by him were blank or filled up. Therefore, it was
contended that the learned Labour Court has grossly erred in
disbelieving the stand of the petitioner/Management that the
respondent/workman had not voluntarily resigned.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire award. The
argument which is sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is in fact pertaining to re-appreciation of evidence which has
been adduced by the respective sides before the learned Labour Court
below. The learned Labour Court has gone through the entire evidence
and disbelieved the version of the petitioner /Management that the
respondent/workman had tendered his resignation and accepted the
plea of the respondent /workman that his services were illegally and
unjustifiably terminated. One of the important factors which has been
taken into consideration in arriving at this finding by the learned
Labour Court is the factum of grant of retrenchment compensation by
the petitioner /Management to the respondent /workman. If the
respondent /workman had actually tendered resignation and left the
services, it is totally unbelievable that the petitioner would have paid
retrenchment compensation to the respondent /workman.
5. Be that as it may, since this Court is exercising the power of
judicial review, it cannot sit as a Court of appeal and re-appreciate the
entire evidence and arrive at a finding of fact separately and even if it
happens to be different than the one which has been arrived by the
learned Labour Court below and then substitute its own finding in place
of the finding of the Court below.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out
any violation of principles of natural justice, rule, regulation or
perversity in the award. Accordingly, the writ petition is without any
merit and the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 08, 2009
RN
