Delhi High Court
M/S Textile Waste Industries vs Smt. Devki W/O Shri Ved Prakash on 20 March, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) NO. 7619/2009
% Date of Decision : 20.03.2009
M/S TEXTILE WASTE INDUSTRIES .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Mohd. Nayeemuddin, Advocate
Versus
SMT. DEVKI W/O SHRI VED PRAKASH .... Respondent
Through Ms.Madhuri Gupta proxy counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
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. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 19th
February, 2008 passed by the learned Labour Court-I in I.D. No.
90/2005 in the case titled Smt. Devki W/o Shri Ved Prakash Vs.
M/s Textile Waste Industries.
2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court
had held that the workman had not voluntarily left the services of
the management w.e.f. 9th February, 2004 after taking his full and
final settlement and on the contrary the services of the petitioner
were illegally and unjustifiably terminated without compliance
with Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However,
the learned Labour Court was of the opinion that the interest of
the justice would be met, in case, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
is paid to the respondent/workman in lieu of reinstatement and
back wages to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of
the petitioner/management to the effect that it was the
respondent/workman herself who had left the services voluntarily
of her own after signing the documents with regard to the
settlement of her account. The learned Labour Court has
squarely and rightly put the onus with regard to the issue of
proving that the respondent/workman had left the services of her
own after resigning on the petitioner/management. It had
observed that the petitioner/management had failed to discharge
the said onus that the respondent/workman has resigned and
abandoned her service after settling the account. It is pertinent
here to reproduce the contents of para 8 in this regard from the
award of the learned Labour Court which reads as under:-
"8. Onus was on the management to prove
the said claim. To discharge the onus, the
management has filed on record the
resignation letter dated 06.02.04 Ex.MW1/2,
full and final settlement Ex.MW1/3 and a
voucher Ex.MW1/4. The claimant has denied
having affixed any thumb impression on these
documents. AR for management has
submitted that the denial of claimant is
inconsequential as she has denied her thumb
impression even on her affidavit and she did
not specifically admit or deny her thumb
impression on her statement of claim. He
continued that this denial by the worker
reflects that she was tutored to deny her
thumb impression on all documents of the
management and no reliance can be placed on
her statement. This submission of AR for
management is though attractive but is devoid
of any merit as it was incumbent upon the
management to prove its case and it cannot
draw any support from some discrepancy in
statement of the claimant. There is no escape
from the fact that it is impossible to identify
thumb impression with naked eye. The
documents relied by management to prove full
and final settlement have been filed by the
management and were in its custody. Though
they have been exhibited in evidence but they
have not been proved as per law. It is a
settled proposition of law that mere exhibition
does not amount to legal proof of the
documents. MW1, who exhibited these
documents in his statement admitted that the
resignation letter Ex.MW1/2 was not tendered
to him personally by the worker. He did not
affirm in his affidavit that other two
documents were prepared in his presence or
any amount was paid to the worker by him or
in his presence. All these documents, reflect
that they have been signed by Anjana Gupta
as proprietor of the management. She did not
step into t he witness box to depose that
resignation was tendered by the claimant to
her or was accepted by her or that on her
directions a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to
the claimant. No explanation has been given
for non-appearance of said Smt. Anjana
Gupta in evidence. As per Ex.MW1/3, one
Virender Kr. Aggarwal was the witness in
whose presence full and final payment was
given to the claimant but he was also not
summoned or tendered in evidence without
any reasonable justification. The
management could have substantiated its
claim of full and final payment with its
account books showing disbursement of the
said sum in favour of claimant on 09.02.2004
but again no account books were produced or
proved in evidence. For these reasons, I am
satisfied that management has failed to prove
that the claimant has voluntarily left the
services of management w.e.f. 09.02.04 and
had taken her full and final dues. Issue is
decided in favour of workman and against the
management."
4. A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that the learned
Labour Court has analyzed the evidence adduced by the parties
and come to a finding of fact. This Court while exercising the writ
jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the
said evidence again. The petitioner has not been able to point out
any perversity in the finding of the learned Labour Court. He has
also not been able to point out the violation of any principle of
natural justice, rule, regulation or any illegality in the order upon
which only this Court can interfere with the award of the learned
Labour Court.
5. The learned Labour Court instead of ordering reinstatement
and payment of back wages has given a paltry sum of Rs.50,000/-
as compensation. The quantum of compensation which has been
given can also not said to be unfair or unreasonable which may
need any interference.
6. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is without
any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
MARCH 20, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J.
KP
