Shri Puran Singh vs The Management Of M/S Sawhney Gas ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1454 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     WP (C) No. 2071/2008

%                                   Judgment delivered on: 17.04.2009


Shri Puran Singh                                    ...... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.

                      versus


The Management of M/s Sawhney
Gas Agency                                          .... Respondents
                   Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may                     No
      be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?                            No

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported                       No
      in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

* By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the

impugned Award whereby reference was answered against the

petitioner while against the other workmen compensation amount of

Rs. 80,000/- was awarded in lieu of reinstatement backwages etc.

Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that before the Labour Court it was duly proved that services

of the petitioner along with other workmen were illegally terminated

without paying any retrenchment benefits. Counsel further submits

that it was also proved on record that the petitioner along with other

workmen remained unemployed from the date of their retrenchment

and they were not able to find any gainful employment despite their

best efforts. Counsel also submits that the learned Labour Court

unnecessarily gave importance to the denial of the petitioner of his

signatures on the statement of claim as well as on his affidavit in his

cross-examination. The petitioner infact could not understand the

questions during his cross-examination, the counsel contends. The

counsel for the petitioner thus urges that in such circumstances the

Court should have questioned the petitioner so as to elicit truth from

the petitioner instead of attaching importance to his denial of his

signatures on the claim petition as well in his affidavit.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

The present petitioner out rightly denied his signatures on the

claim petition as well as on his affidavit. During the cross-

examination, the petitioner also did not offer any explanation with

regard to the said denials nor any permission was sought by him for

his re-examination. Once the petitioner himself had denied his

signatures on the statement of claim as well as on the affidavit filed by

him to adduce his evidence nothing contrary to the same could be

held by the Labour Court. There was no need to put Court questions

to the petitioner when there was no ambiguity in the approach of the

petitioner in outrightly denying his signatures on the statement of

claim as well as on his affidavit. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity

in the impugned Award. The present petition is devoid of any merit.

The same is, therefore, dismissed.

April 17, 2009                               KAILASH GAMBHIR,J.
rkr