M/S. Chaudhary Knitting Machine ... vs Shri Ghanshyam Dass
2009 Latest Caselaw 2528 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 4875/2006

%                           Date of Decision: 08 July, 2009


# M/s Chaudhary Knitting Machine Pvt. Ltd.
                                                            ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Anurag Dubey, Advocate.

                                    VERSUS

$ SHRI Ghanshyam Dass
                                                  .....RESPONDENT

^                  Through: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate

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) This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is

directed against an ex-parte award dated 07.05.2003 directing

reinstatement of the workman (the respondent herein) with 50% back

wages and benefit of continuity of service.

2 The impugned award is assailed by the management inter-alia on

the ground that it was not served with the notice of the proceedings

pending before the Labour Court and for that reason, the management

could not participate in the proceedings before the court below. The

record of the Labour Court was requisitioned by this Court and the same

has been perused by me. A perusal of the lower court record reveals that

the notice of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court was duly

served upon the management (the petitioner herein) by the registered

A.D. post. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under

the Companies Act, 1956. A.D. card showing service of notice of

proceedings before the court below is at page 171 in the file of the lower

court. This notice was served on the management for 10.09.2002 the

date fixed before the court below. Since nobody appeared on behalf of

the management despite service, the court below was fully justified in

proceeding ex-parte against the management/ petitioner. It seems that

the petitioner has taken a false stand regarding service in the writ

petition knowing full well that it had received the notice of the

proceedings pending before the court below. The conduct of the

petitioner also needs to be mentioned here. This Court had passed an

order dated 18.03.2009 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay wages in terms of the

award from the date of award to the respondent within four weeks from

the said order and continue to pay him the amount of last drawn wages

or the minimum wages for each month on or before 7 th of each

succeeding English calender month till the decision of the writ petition.

The liberty was also granted to the petitioner to ask the respondent to

resume duties, if it so desire but the petitioner neither took the

respondent back on duty nor paid him either the arrears or the future

wages in terms of order dated 18.03.2009. It appears that the petitioner

wants to keep the workman in continuing litigation for reasons best know

to it. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its

extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution in favour of the petitioner.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed.

CM Nos.15359/2007 & 4042/2006 in WP(C) No.4875/2006

Since the main writ petition has been dismissed, both these

applications are also rendered infructuous and stand disposed of

accordingly.

JULY 08, 2009                            S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'