Joint Plant Committee vs Shri Ram
2009 Latest Caselaw 1764 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    WP (C) Nos. 674/2006

%                             Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2009

Joint Plant Committee          ...... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Alakh Kumar, AAdvocate

                     versus

Shri Ram                       ..... Respondent/workman
                          Through: Mr. Gajender Giri, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may          Yes
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?                 Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported            Yes
       in the Digest?

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

*

1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the

impugned award dated 16.11.2004 passed in I.D. No. 13/2000

whereby directions were given by the Labour Court to the

petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% of the back

wages drawn by him at the time of termination of his services or

as per the Minimum Wages Act whichever were higher from the

date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement.

2. Brief facts of the case in nut shell are as under:-

The workman was employed with the management as

Safai Karamchari w.e.f. January, 1988 and his last drawn salary

was Rs.1500/- per month. During his tenure of service, he never

gave any cause of complaint to the management. However, the

management was not providing legal facilities, such as, annual

leave, weekly off, bonus, overtime, and was also not paying his

wages as per Minimum Wages Act. The workman had been

demanding from the management the said legal facilities and the

wages as per Minimum Wages Act. Ultimately, the management

got annoyed and terminated the services of the workman w.e.f.

14.1.1999 without giving any notice or issuing any chargeshet

and without adhering to the mandate of Section 25-F of the I.D.

Act, 1947. A demand notice dated 19.1.1999 was sent to the

management but it did not respond. The matter was sent to the

Conciliation Officer and on failure of the conciliation

proceedings the reference was sent to the Labour Court. Notice

was sent to the management but nobody appeared hence on

2.11.2000 it was proceeded ex-parte. The Labour Court passed

the impugned award in favour of the workman. Aggrieved with

the said award the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was not served before the Labour Court as a result of which an

ex-parte award was passed against the petitioner. Counsel

further submits that the Labour Court wrongly recorded in the

proceedings dated 2.11.2000 that the petitioner was served and

not present and then directions were given for ex-parte evidence

after proceeding the management ex-parte. The contention of

the counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was not

served then how the presence could have been made on behalf

of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is

an autonomous body under the Ministry of Steel, Central

Government of India and therefore, being a Government body

would not have refrained from appearing before the Labour

Court once having received the summons from the Labour Court.

Counsel further submits that the respondent workman was

under the contractual employment of respondent No.2 and

therefore, there was no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties. Counsel also submits that the salary and

all other statutory payments were being paid by the respondent

No.2 to the respondent No.1 under the terms and conditions of

the agreement executed between them. Counsel thus submits

that these facts could not be placed by the petitioner since the

petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before the Labour Court and

therefore, believing the stand of the respondent/workman the

Labour Court passed an ex-parte award giving directions for the

reinstatement of the respondent with 50% of the back wages.

Giving an explanation for non-appearance of the petitioner the

counsel submits that no notice was ever issued by the Labour

Court to the petitioner and therefore, the Labour Court wrongly

proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner vide orders dated

16.11.2004. Counsel further submits that the petitioner came to

know about the said ex-parte award by notice dated 17.11.2005

received by it from the office of the Recovery Collector Officer

and thereafter necessary steps were taken by the petitioner to

carry out the inspection of the records and therefore to

challenge the same by filing the present writ petition.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

5. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 2.11.2000

when none appeared for the petitioner management. The

Labour Court kept waiting for the petitioner/management till

2.15 p.m. and when nobody appeared till then, directions were

given for proceeding ex-parte to the petitioner management.

The petitioner claims that no notice from the Labour Court was

received by it and therefore, the petitioner could come to know

about the pendency of the said proceedings only on 17.11.2005

and not prior thereto. The petitioner has also stated in the

present petition that the records of the Labour Court were

inspected and thereafter steps were taken to file the present

petition. In the entire petition the petitioner has not given any

explanation or reasons to satisfy this Court about the service

effected upon the petitioner through registered AD for the date

fixed before the Labour Court. On perusal of the record it is

evident that summons were sent to the petitioner vide postal

receipt No. 2156 and on the returned AD Card there is an

acknowledgment by some person although without the seal of

the company. It is further not in dispute that the addresses of

the petitioner is correctly stated on the postal receipt as well as

on the AD card. Simply, because the AD card does not bear the

seal of the company this Court cannot come to the conclusion

that the summons were not received by the petitioner. It was for

the petitioner to have given the reasons as to under what

circumstances, the said summons were not received by the

petitioner when clearly summons were directed at the correct

address and there is AD Card which is duly signed by some

person on behalf of the petitioner in acknowledgment of the

receipt of the summons. Since no such explanation has been

given by the petitioner, therefore, I am not persuaded to believe

the contention of the petitioner that they had gained knowledge

of the ex-parte award only after the receipt of the notice from

the office of the recovery collector. In the absence of any

reasons, an adverse inference can be drawn against the

management that it was not vigilant and diligent in pursuing the

case before the Tribunal. The presumption certainly arises

under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as against the

petitioner when summons were sent by way of registered AD

and postal receipts and AD Cards are available in record of the

case.

6. In the light of the aforesaid position, I am not inclined

to set aside the ex-parte award, since I do not find any plausible

reasons given by the petitioner to show that the petitioner did

not receive the summons of the case before the Labour Court.

Dismissed.

April 30, 2009                           KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
pk