Shri Surinder Singh Chawla vs State Of Delhi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1902 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 Writ Petition (Civil) No.12681/2006

                                     Date of Decision : 06.5.2009

SHRI SURINDER SINGH CHAWLA              ...... Petitioner
                         Through : Mr.Sandeep Kumar,
                         Advocate.

                              Versus

STATE OF DELHI & ORS.                      ......      Respondents
                                   Through : Nemo.


CORAM :
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)

CM No.6062/2009

This is an application seeking restoration of the writ

petition to its original number.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the writ

petition is restored to its original number.

W.P.(C) No.12681/2006

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the

merits of the case.

2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged

the ex parte award dated 17.2.2001 passed by the learned

Labour Court -VI in ID no.7/1998 titled The Management of M/s

Chawla Industries Vs. Its Workmen Sh. Rajesh Kumar and

Sh.Dinesh Kumar.

3. By virtue of the aforesaid ex parte award, the termination of

the services of two workmen namely Sh.Rajesh Kumar and

Sh.Dinesh Kumar on 15.5.97 was held to be illegal and

unjustified and accordingly, they were directed to be reinstated

with full back wages.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid ex parte

award has preferred the present writ petition and challenge the

same on the ground that they were not served and accordingly

they did not have any knowledge about the pendency of the

matter. The petitioners were set ex parte vide order dated

22.11.1999.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the respondents 3 and 4/workmen were actually employees

of M/s Hindustan Industries (Hindustan Electric Works) while as

they tried to serve the summons on 1476-77, S.P. Mukherjee

Marg, Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi-06, which was the office of

M/s Chawla Industries and therefore, as they have not been

served thus they were prevented by 'sufficient cause' from

appearing in the matter.

6. I have considered the submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the award shows that the

workmen filed their affidavits by way of evidence in which they

stated that M/s Hindustan Electric Works and M/s Chawla

Industries are the family concern of the same person. Originally

they were employees of M/s Hindustan Industries, now

Hindustan Electric Works which is having its office at B-259

Phase 1, New Delhi and since the said firm was closed, the

services of the respondents 3 and 4/workmen were transferred to

M/s Chawla Industries, 1476-77, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Behind

Navelty Cinema, Delhi-06. The services of the workmen were

continued till the time they were terminated on 15.5.1997.

7. It is stated in the award that Sh.Rajesh Kumar's salary was

Rs.2200/- per month and Sh.Dinesh Kumar was working as a

Helper and his salary was Rs.1300/- per month. Sh.Dinesh

Kumar is alleged to have rendered services of eight years.

8. The petitioner in the present petition denied the service and it

has not given any cogent explanation about the factum that M/s

Chawla Industries is not the family concern of the same person.

It is simply urged that the service has not been affected on the

petitioner and therefore, the award deserves to be set aside.

9. Under Section 80 of the Evidence Act a presumption of

correctness is attached to the judicial proceedings though strictly

speaking the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to

the proceedings before the learned Labour Court in essence the

principles would be applicable. There is no reason as to why the

learned Labour Court ought not to have proceeded ex parte

against the petitioner after the services having been effected.

Photocopy of the summons has also been placed on record which

shows that service was effected on M/s Chawla Industries. If

despite the services, the petitioner has chosen not to appear, it

has been done so at their own peril. Accordingly, I feel that there

is no merit in the writ petition so far as the contention of the

petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte award is concerned.

10. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that so far as other portion of the award with regard to

the reinstatement and payment of back wages is concerned, the

facts of the case are not such where such a relief ought to have

been given.

11. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for

the petitioner. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the place

of address where the respondent no.3 was living has been

demolished and therefore, he could not be served. So far as

the respondent no.4 is concerned, he has been served by way of

publication. None for the respondent has been appearing. This

clearly shows that respondents 3 and 4 were not interested in

reinstatement. In such a contingency were the workmen is not

vigilant enough in contesting and pursuing the matter, it clearly

shows that the grant of the benefit of reinstatement or the

payment of back wages would not be justified as it would keep

the sword hanging on the management. Under these

circumstances, I feel that it would be just, proper and fair to

modify the award dated 17.2.2001 by directing the petitioner to

pay one time lump sum compensation to the workmen. Since

respondents 3 and 4 are not appearing, therefore, only a token

compensation would meet the ends of justice.

12. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.10,000/- each with the learned Registrar General of this

Court within four weeks from today as one time lump sum

compensation to the respondents 3 and 4 which shall be released

to the respondents 3 and 4 after they apply for the release of the

same.

13. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of and

the award dated 17.2.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court -

VI in ID no.7/1998 stands modified. So far as the direction

regarding deposit of one time lumsum compensation is

concerned. List the matter before the learned Registrar for the

purpose of compliance on 6th July, 2009.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 06, 2009 RN