Delhi High Court
K.M.Industries vs Karan Kumar on 25 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 249/2009 & CM Nos. 7714-15/2009
K.M.INDUSTRIES ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Chopra and Mr. L.C.
Rajput, Advocates.
versus
KARAN KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 25.05.2009
1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned
single Judge dated 1st May, 2009.
2. A reference was made for an industrial dispute raised by the
respondent (original respondent in the writ petition). As per the
respondent, he had been engaged under employment of the appellant
for the last six years prior to the date of his dismissal on the post of
'Pressman'. It was urged by the respondent before the Labour Court
that he had an unblemished track record and the Management had
resorted to unfair labour practices. As per the respondent, the
Management had not issued any appointment letter at the time of
appointment or during the course of his employment despite repeated
demands. He urged that his services were terminated without
assigning any reason or cause or without serving any notice after
withholding the salary of 22 days.
3. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the Management
before the Labour Court that it was the workman who had
abandoned his services and it was not a case of unjustifiable
termination. The Management contended that the entire payment
amounting to Rs. 7,000/- towards full and final settlement had been
made. However, the Labour Court took note of the fact that the
Management failed to produce any document to show that the
settlement had been made towards full and final payment and that
the workman had left of his own free volition. It was also pleaded on
behalf of the Management that the firm had been closed and the
Management had started another manufacturing unit.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the Management had failed to
show anything on record that the workman had left of his own
volition and had settled his accounts as also the fact that the
establishment had since been closed, the Labour Court came to a
conclusion that ends of justice would be met if the workman was
compensated adequately for the illegal termination of his services as
well as 50% back wages. The same was quantified as Rs. 1,00,000/-
and the Award was passed in those terms.
5. The contention of the Management before the Labour Court in
the writ petition was that the respondent/workman never worked for
a period of six years as was alleged by the respondent, the reason
being that the appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) had
started its business somewhere in May, 1999, therefore, there was no
question of their appointing the respondent and employing him w.e.f.
1996. The learned single Judge rightly observed that neither in the
evidence of the appellant adduced in the Labour Court nor in the
cross-examination of the respondent/workman such a case was set
up by the appellant/Management that they had commenced business
from 1999. Therefore, the learned single Judge held that the
appellant/Management could not be permitted to set up a new case
at this stage. It is also pertinent to mention here that though in its
evidence led before the Labour Court, the appellant/Management had
deposed to the factum of full and final settlement on 10th September,
2002,however, in the cross-examination of the respondent/workman,
no such suggestion was ever put to the respondent/workman to
enable him to rebut the said contention/allegation.
6. We find no infirmity in the findings of the learned single Judge
to merit any interference. The Labour Court has rightly after taking
into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances awarded a
compensation amount to the respondent/workman without directing
reinstatement. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending
application stand disposed of as well.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 25, 2009
sb
