Delhi High Court
M/S Naveen Metal vs Shri Ram Bali on 4 November, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 12825/2009
% Date of Decision: 04TH NOVEMBER,2009
# M/S NAVEEN METAL .....PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Atul Kumar Jain, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ SHRI RAM BALI .....RESPONDENT
^ Through: NEMO.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
C.M. No. 13628/2009
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C.) No. 12825/2009 and C.M. No. 13627/2009(for stay)
The management of M/s Naveen Metal in this writ petition seeks to
challenge an industrial award dated 22.07.2009 directing reinstatement
of the respondent workman with 60% back wages.
2. Heard on admission.
3. The respondent workman was appointed as a Pressman with the
petitioner management for last about 12 years prior to termination of his
services by the petitioner management w.e.f. 08.02.2005. His last drawn
wages were Rs. 2,000/- per month.
4. The respondent workman had filed a statement of claim raising
dispute regarding his termination directly before the Labour Court and
claimed reinstatement with back wages. The claim for reinstatement
made by the workman was denied by the petitioner management on the
ground that the workman had abandoned the service of the petitioner
management of his own to avoid return of advance of Rs. 65,000/- taken
by him in September 2004. The petitioner management had relied upon
a letter dated 20.10.2004 purported to had been written by the
respondent workman to the petitioner management permitting it to
deduct Rs. 2,000/- per month from his salary towards re-payment of
advance of Rs. 65,000/- allegedly taken by him in September 2004.
5. The case put up by the management before the Labour Court was
that despite letter dated 20.10.2004 written by the respondent to the
management, he did not allow the petitioner management to deduct
Rs.2,000/- per month from his salary ever since loan of Rs. 65,000/- was
taken by him. The further case of the management was that the
workman abandoned the service of the petitioner of his own accord to
avoid return of the advance taken by him in September 2004. This case
set up by the management was not believed by the Court below.
6. I have gone through the impugned award carefully but on going
through the same, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the said
award that may call for an interference by this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning
given in the impugned award to arrive at a conclusion that the services of
the respondent workman were illegally terminated by the petitioner
management. It may be noted that the alleged advance of Rs. 65,000/-
was given in cash and not by means of any account payee cheque or pay
order. It sounds strange that in case the respondent workman had taken
the advance as alleged by the management and had written a letter
dated 20.10.2004 asking the management to deduct Rs. 2,000/- per
month from his salary to adjust the re-payment of advance, then what
prevented the management from making the deduction from his salary
for the months of October onwards till the date he was terminated on
08.02.2005. This creates a serious doubt on the bonafides of the defense
set up on behalf of the management in proceedings before the Labour
Court.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition,
which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. The stay application is also
dismissed.
NOVEMBER 04, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'
