Subash Chand vs M/S. Mitsui And Company
2009 Latest Caselaw 2567 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  CM No. 6761/2009 & W.P.(C) No. 9142/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 10 July, 2009

# Subash Chand
                                                              ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Mohit Chadha, Advocate

                                   VERSUS
$ M/s. Mitsui & Company
                                                    .....RESPONDENT

^ Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate

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)

CM No. 6761/2009 (for exemption) in WP(C) No.9142/2009

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) No.9142/2009

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

directed against an award dated 09.05.2008 passed by Ms. Nisha

Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour Court VI, Fast Track, Delhi rejecting his

claim for reinstatement and back wages.

2. The petitioner alleges his termination from the service of

respondent being M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. w.e.f. 07.08.1998. He had raised

an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination which was

referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication by the Labour

Court. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence produced by the

parties before it, has reached to a conclusion that there was no

employer-employee relationship between the parties warranting

reinstatement of the petitioner as he was employed as a personal driver

of the respondent's Group Project Manager, Mr. Krishan Khanna, who

resigned from the service of respondent company on the same day, i.e.,

07.08.2008 when the services of petitioner were allegedly terminated.

The petitioner was engaged as a driver for driving the car allotted to

respondent's Group Project Manager, Mr. Krishan Khanna who under the

rules of the company was entitled to personal allowance of Rs. 3500/- per

month. The court below for cogent reasons contained in the impugned

award has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner has failed to

prove that he was employed by the respondent company. The court

below has further noted in the impugned award that there was no privity

of contract between the petitioner and the respondent company.

3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank

Versus Ghulam Dastagir AIR 1978 SC 481. In Dastagir's case (supra)

also, the claim of the driver, engaged for the Area Manager of the Bank,

for his reinstatement was found not sustainable as the driver was not

engaged by the Bank but by the Area Manager in terms of rules

applicable to the Bank. In this case also, the petitioner was engaged for

driving the car of respondent's Group Project Manager and not by the

respondent.

4. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned award

that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its

extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

JULY 10, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'ma'