M/S Manik Exports vs Shri Ratan Lal And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 3067 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 15126/2006

%                 Date of Decision: 07th August, 2009


# M/s Manik Exports
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. K.K. Rohtagi, Advocate

                                 VERSUS

$ Sh. Ratan Lal & Anr
                                                   .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj for respondent No. 1.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

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

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The management of M/s Manik Exports through its proprietor Mr.

Surendra Singh (the petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari or

any other writ or direction quashing the ex-parte award dated

03.08.2002 in ID No. 674/2000 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator

directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with

50% back wages.

2 Mr. K.K. Rohtagi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 was never

employed by the petitioner and according to him there was no

relationship of employer and employee between the parties. He has

further argued that the petitioner never ever had any connection with

premises No. WZ-33, Gali No. 10, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi or

25, Paschim Vihar Extension at which respondent No. 1 had allegedly

worked while in the alleged employment of the petitioner. Mr. Rohtagi

has taken me through various documents at pages 24-45 of the paper

book to contend that till 1999 the petitioner was doing its business from

premises bearing No. E-280, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi and the petitioner

had shifted its business from E-280, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi to B-2/77,

Paschim Vihar sometime in early 2000.

3 Respondent No. 1 in his complaint dated 12.11.1996 (Ex. WW-1/12

at page 53 of the paper book), in the demand notice dated 28.11.1999

and also in the statement of claims filed before the Labour Court on

31.07.2000 mentioned the address of the petitioner as WZ-33, Gali No.

10, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. However, on the same day of filing

of statement of claims before the Labour Court i.e. on 31.07.2000,

respondent No. 1 also filed an application to bring on record the changed

name and address of the petitioner i.e. Surendra Singh, Proprietor M/s

Manik Exports, B-2/77, Paschim Vihar, Delhi which according to the

petitioner is its correct address. The change in the name and address of

the petitioner was allowed by the Labour Court and notice of reference

was sent to the petitioner at its correct address. The record of the court

below contains an A.D. card which purport to bear the signatures of

someone having received the notice of reference on behalf of the

petitioner. However, Mr. Rohtagi learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner contends that he had shown the A.D. card available in the

file of the court below to his client who has denied his signatures on the

said A.D. card. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, the petitioner never received any notice from the Labour Court

and for that reason, the petitioner could not prove its defence against the

reference to show that respondent No. 1 was never employed by the

petitioner and that there was no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties.

4 I have given my anxious consideration to the rival arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the parties. I do not wish to make any

comment on the documents filed by respondent No. 1 before the Labour

Court to show himself to be an employee of the petitioner as it is likely to

cause a prejudice to either of the parties. These documents relied upon

by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court are at pages 74-78 of the

paper book. On giving my anxious consideration to the rival submissions

made by counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that ends

of justice require an opportunity to be given to the petitioner to prove

that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the

parties but at the same time, the interest of workman being respondent

No. 1 in the petition also need to be secured so that in the event the

petitioner would fail to prove its defence to the reference, respondent No.

1 may get his legitimate dues in terms of fresh award promptly and

without any hassle.

5 Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the submissions

made by counsel for the parties, the impugned ex-parte order dated

03.08.2002 in ID No.674/2000 is hereby set aside and the case is

remanded back to the concerned Labour Court/successor court for fresh

adjudication of the reference in accordance with law after giving an

opportunity of hearing to both the parties subject to the petitioner's

depositing the entire award amount with the court below within six weeks

from today. The Labour Court is directed to keep the award amount to be

deposited by the petitioner in a fixed deposit for a period of one year so

that the deposit does not remain unproductive.

6 The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Labour

Court/ successor court for directions at 2:00 PM on 20.08.2009. The court

below is directed to decide the reference afresh as expeditiously as

possible preferably within one year from today.

7 A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Labour

Court/successor court for information and necessary compliance. LCR be

also sent back.

8 In view of the above, this writ petition as well as all pending misc.

applications stand disposed of.

9     Order dasti.




AUGUST 07, 2009                                               S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'