Dhirinder Negi & Ors. vs Management Of Ashoka Hotel
2009 Latest Caselaw 854 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) No.13321-24/2005 & CM 10228/2005

%                                   Date of Decision : 17.03.2009

DHIRINDER NEGI & ORS.                                   .... Petitioners

                         Through : Proxy counsel for Mr.Azhar Alam

                                  Versus

MANAGEMENT OF ASHOKA HOTEL              .... Respondent
             Through : Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate.

CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers 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

V. K. SHALI, J.(Oral)


1.      Proxy counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment on the

ground that Mr.Azhar Alam, Advocate is out of station.         Request of

adjournment is disallowed in view of the fact that the previous orders

show that since 26.9.2007, adjournments on behalf of the petitioner

have been sought on 25.3.2008, 26.11.2008 and 3.3.2009.             Neither

rejoinder has been filed, nor main counsel for the petitioner is present

even today, therefore, the request for adjournment is disallowed.

2.     The petitioner by virtue of the present writ petition has challenged

the award dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I

in ID No.108/1996.




WP(C) No.13321-24/2005                                            Page 1 of 3
 3.     By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has

come to a finding of fact that the petitioners in the instant case were not

the employees of respondent no.1 i.e. Ashoka Hotel and that they were

actually employees of M/s Metal Hard Electronic Services and therefore,

there exists no relationship of the employee and employer between them

which would confer the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court.         The

finding of the learned Labour Court on this issue is given in paragraphs

20, 21 and 22, which reads as under:-

             "20. A bare perusal of statement of claim itself
             shows that the workmen themselves admit that
             there was a contract between mgt. No.1 and mgt.
             No.2 and there is no averment in the statement of
             claim that the contract was sham or bogus.

             21. Perusal of statement of claim further shows
             that it has also been stated that the contract was
             upto 10.2.95 and the names of the workmen,
             mentioned in the reference had worked only upto
             that date. Though it has been stated in para 16
             that the Security Officers of mgt. No.1 illegally
             removed the workmen forcibly on 17.2.95 yet in
             para 19, it is clearly stated that the termination
             was by management No.2 i.e. the contractor as it
             is clearly stated that M/s. Metal Hard Electronic
             Services in connivance with management no.1
             had wrongly, illegally and forcibly terminated the
             services of the workmen. So, termination by mgt.
             No.2 is also admitted in the statement of claim.

             22. A perusal of statement of claim itself reveals
             that it is the own case of the workmen that their
             salary was paid by management No.2 as is evident
             from the averments, made in para 11 of the
             statement of claim wherein it has been stated that
             the Proprietor of mgt. No.2 was not paying
             minimum wages to the workmen concerned and
             used to take signatures on blank papers without
             paying the amount against their names."


4.     Further it has been admitted by WW-3 Sh.Surender Singh that

the dispute against respondent no.1 Ashoka Hotel has been raised only


WP(C) No.13321-24/2005                                            Page 2 of 3
 on account of the fact that their contractor had run away.          Merely

because the contractor had run away, the respondent no.2 would not

become their employer.

5.     I have gone through the award passed by the learned Labour

Court. The said award is a reasoned award and it has come to a finding

of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence and pleadings of the

parties that there does not exists a relationship of the employee and

employer between the petitioner and respondent no.1. The petitioners

in the instant writ petition have not been able to show that there is any

violation of principles of natural justice, or any rule, regulation or that

there is any perversity in the award. Accordingly, the writ petition is

without any merit and the same is dismissed.




MARCH 17, 2009                                            V.K. SHALI, J.

RN