Delhi High Court
M/S Bharat Litho vs Arjun Mehto And Another on 12 August, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 10817/2009
% Date of Decision: 12th August, 2009
# M/S BHARAT LITHO
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ ARJUN MEHTO & ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENT
^ Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate for
respondent No. 2.
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)
C.M. No. 9402/2009 (exemption) in W.P.(C.) No.10817/2009
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C.) No. 10817/2009 and C.M. No. 9401/2009 (for stay)
This writ petition filed by the management (petitioner herein) is
directed against an award dated 13.07.2007 passed by Ms. Nisha
Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XXI, Delhi, awarding 50% back
wages to the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) for the period from
16.02.1996 to 24.10.2002.
2. Heard.
3. The award challenged in the present writ petition was passed by
the Labour Court on 13.07.2007. This writ petition has been filed after
more than 2 years. No cogent explanation has been given for the delay
caused in filing of the present writ petition. Even if we assume that delay
can be condoned, still the petitioner has no case on merits.
4. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Screen Painter by the
petitioner w.e.f. 27.10.1987 and he was terminated by the petitioner
w.e.f. 16.02.1996. The respondent No. 1 aggrieved by his termination
had raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate
Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. In response to notice
of the reference, the management took a plea that the respondent No. 1
had abandoned the service of the petitioner of his own and according to
the petitioner, respondent No. 1 was not terminated. The issue before
the Labour Court was whether respondent No. 1 had abandoned the
service or whether he was terminated by the petitioner.
5. Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has referred to the contents of letter dated 16.02.1996
(Exhibit WW1/6, Annexure P-5 at pages 17-18 of the Paper Book) to
contend that the petitioner has not terminated the services of the
respondent No. 1 as alleged by him and according to the learned counsel,
vide letter dated 16.02.1996, the respondent No. 1 was only asked to
explain his unauthorised absence in the past. The letter dated
16.02.1996 (Exhibit WW 1/6) was duly replied by the respondent No. 1
vide letter dated 19.02.1996 (Annexure P-6 at page 20 of the Paper
Book). After receiving the reply of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner
sent another communication dated 20.02.1996 to the respondent No. 1
which is Annexure P-7 (at page 23 of the Paper Book) in which the
petitioner took a stand that it was justified in not retaining the
respondent No. 1 in its service. It may be noted that the respondent No.
1 in his cross-examination before the Labour Court has categorically
stated that he was not allowed to join the duty by the petitioner after
16.02.1996. This clearly proves that the services of the respondent No. 1
were terminated by the petitioner and for that reason, the impugned
award by which he has been awarded 50% back wages from the date of
his termination till the date of order of reinstatement dated 24.10.2002
cannot be faulted with.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or
perversity in the impugned award which may call for an interference by
this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails
and is hereby dismissed in limine.
AUGUST 12, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'
