Shri Harjeet Singh Bhatia vs Govt. Of National Capital ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 5225 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 4489/2007

%               Date of Decision: 15th December, 2009

# SHRI HARJEET SINGH BHATIA
                                                           ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Y.P. Bhasin, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
                                              .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. Sandeep S. Duggal for counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3.

Mr. Sajan K. Singh for the respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

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

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) Nobody is present on behalf of respondents No. 5, 6 & 9 despite

their service by publication in 'The Statesman' dated 28.10.2009.

Hence, respondents No. 5, 6 & 9 are proceeded ex-parte.

2 The petitioner Mr. Harjeet Singh Bhatia has filed this writ petition

against the respondents for issuance of an appropriate writ,

directions/order against respondents No. 1 to 3 not to implement the

corrigendum/office order No. F.23/509/05/N/Labour/2046 dated

28.03.2007 against him.

3 Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this

writ petition are that an industrial award dated 15.07.1995 was passed

by the Labour Court in favour of six workmen who are respondents No. 4

to 9 in this writ petition directing their reinstatement with back wages.

This award was passed against the management of M/s Premier Safe

Company at Jhandewalan, M.M. Road, New Delhi. The workmen have

neither been reinstated nor paid their back wages despite award in their

favour. The workmen took proceedings for implementation of the award

before the Labour authorities and pursuant thereto, the concerned

Implementation Officer issued a notice dated 22.09.2006 (Annexure A at

page 14 of the Paper Book) calling upon the petitioner to implement the

industrial award in favour of workmen (respondents No. 4 to 9). This

notice was promptly replied by the petitioner and his reply is Annexure B

(at pages 15 to 17 of the Paper Book). Thereafter, the Implementation

officer issued a corrigendum dated 28.03.2007 taking on record an

affidavit filed by the workmen, according to which, the petitioner along

with six others is stated to be liable to pay the amount directed to be

paid vide industrial award in their favour.

4 It is aggrieved by these above notice and corrigendum issued by

the Implementation Officer, the petitioner has filed the present writ

petition for directions to respondents No. 1 to 3 not to implement the

industrial award in favour of the workmen against him as mentioned in

the impugned notice/corrigendum.

5 The industrial award which is sought to be implemented by the

workmen (respondents No. 4 to 9) was passed by the Labour Court

against the firm M/s Premier Safe Company, Jhandewalan, New Delhi.

6 Mr. Y.P. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, has argued that the petitioner never ever had any connection

or interest in M/s Premier Safe Company at any point of time. It is

submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was never a partner in the

firm M/s Premier Safe Company. According to the petitioner, M/s Premier

Safe Company was comprised of five partners, viz. Smt. Agya Kaur w/o

Shri Inder Singh, Shri Kuldeep Singh Bhatia S/o Shri Inder Singh, Shri

Bhupinder Singh S/o Shri Inder Singh, Smt. Harbans Kaur w/o Shri

Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sudarshan Kaur w/o Shri Jaswant Singh. The

father of the petitioner was one of the partners of the firm M/s Premier

Safe Company but he retired on 21.04.1973.

7 The petitioner in his reply to the notice filed before the

Implementation Officer has placed copy of the Dissolution Deed and also

a copy of the Assessment Order to show that he never ever had any

interest in the firm M/s Premier Safe Company.

8 Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

has taken me through the contents of the Dissolution Deed (a copy of

which is at Annexure G at pages 23-24 of the Paper Book) and he has

also taken me through the assessment order (a copy of which is at

Annexure H at page 25 of the Paper Book) to contend that the petitioner

was never a partner or had any interest in the business of M/s Premier

Safe Company.

9 Relying on these two documents, Mr. Bhasin has argued that after

the firm M/s Premier Safe Company was dissolved on 23.04.1973, it was

taken over by Smt. Sudarshan Kaur w/o Shri Jaswant Singh, who did

business as sole proprietor for one month in May 1973 and thereafter,

another person by name Shri Inder Singh was inducted as a partner in

the business along with Smt. Sudarshan Kaur.

10 A perusal of Para 4 of the Dissolution Deed (Annexure G at page 23

of the Paper Book) reveals that Smt. Sudarshan Kaur has taken upon

herself all the liabilities of the business run by M/s Premier Safe Company

upon its dissolution on 23.04.1973.

11 Out of the six workmen, three of them namely respondents No. 4, 7

& 8 are represented in the matter by their counsel Mr. Sajan K. Singh,

Advocate. Nobody has appeared for the three workmen namely

respondents No. 5, 6 & 9 despite their service by publication in 'The

Statesman' of 28.10.2009 edition.

12 On being repeatedly asked, Mr. Sajan K. Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 4, 7 & 8, could not point out

the nexus of the petitioner with the firm M/s Premier Safe Company

against whom industrial award in favour of the workmen was passed by

the Labour Court. The contention of Mr. Sajan K. Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 4, 7 & 8 is that the Court

should apply the principle of 'lifting of Corporate Veil' to ascertain that, in

fact, it was the petitioner who had been doing the business of the firm

M/s Premier Safe Company.

13 I am sorry I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with

the submissions made on behalf of the respondents No. 4, 7 & 8. There

is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner at no point of

time had any interest in the business of the firm M/s Premier Safe

Company against whom industrial award in favour of the workmen was

passed. The firm M/s Premier Safe Company was assessed to income tax

for the assessment year 1974-75 on 01.03.1979 and a perusal of the

assessment order (Annexure H at page 25 of the Paper Book) shows that

the firm M/s Premier Safe Company stood dissolved on 23.04.1973 and

its business was being taken by Smt. Sudarshan Kaur thereafter. This

assessment order, by no means, can be said to be a fabricated document

as it was passed about two decades before the industrial award came in

favour of the workmen. Since the workmen have failed to establish the

nexus of the petitioner with the firm M/s Premier Safe Company, the

petitioner cannot be held liable to implement the industrial award in

favour of the workmen. The workmen (respondents No. 4 to 9) will be

entitled to implement the award against the firm M/s Premier Safe

Company and its partners as per law.

14 In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents

No. 1 to 3 are directed not to implement the industrial award dated

15.07.1995 in favour of respondents No. 4 to 9 against the petitioner.

This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to

bear their own costs.

DECEMBER 15, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'