M/S Integ Electronics vs Shri Sunil Kumar And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 4144 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C.) No. 12346/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 13th October, 2009


#     M/S INTEG ELECTRONICS                                 ..... PETITIONER

!                  Through:        Mr. Rajeev Kapoor, Advocate.

                                        VERSUS

$     SHRI SUNIL KUMAR & ANOTHER                          ....RESPONDENTS

^                  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. 12744/2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 12346/2009

Exemption as prayed for filing of certified copies of annexures is

granted subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. No. 12742/2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 12346/2009

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of

delay in re-filing the petition.

Having regard to the averments contained in the instant application

and the submissions made by Mr. Rajeev Kapoor, delay in re-filing the

petition is condoned.

W.P.(C.) No. 12346/2009 and C.M. Nos. 12745/09 (for time for filing of legible copies and true typed copies of dim annexures) and 12743/2009 (for stay)

The management of M/s Integ Electronics, in this writ petition,

seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 02.03.2007 in I.D. No.

408/2005 directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 workman with 50%

back wages.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The respondent workman was employed as a Helper with the

petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004. His services were terminated by the

petitioner w.e.f. 07.07.2005. The respondent aggrieved by his

termination raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the

appropriate Government in the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Labour

Court for adjudication. The management of the petitioner had contested

the claim of the respondent workman for his reinstatement interalia on

the ground that the respondent had worked with the petitioner only for

two months from 17.05.2005 to 07.07.2005 and had left the service of

his own. The plea of the management before the Labour Court was that

the respondent had abandoned the service of the petitioner and that his

services were not terminated by the management as alleged by him. This

defence taken by the management before the Labour Court was falsified

by three important facts discussed in the impugned award.

4. The first is an order of the Competent Authority (Ex. WW-1/8) under

the Minimum Wages Act granting wages of Rs. 43,347/- to the

respondent workman against the petitioner management for the period

from January to June 2005. This order of the Competent Authority under

the Minimum Wages Act has attained finality as it was not assailed by the

management before any higher Court. The order Ex. WW-1/8 passed by

the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act clearly belies the

contention of the management that the respondent workman was

employed only for two months from 17.05.2005 to 07.07.2005. The

document Ex. WW-1/8 implies that the respondent workman was very

much in the establishment of the petitioner management at least in

January 2005, if not in January 2004, the date of appointment claimed by

the workman.

5. The second fact discussed in the impugned award is the

appointment letter Ex. MW-1/3. This document Ex. MW-1/3 was

introduced by the petitioner management, for the first time, in its

evidence to show that the respondent workman was appointed on

17.05.2005. The appointment letter Ex. MW-1/3 was rightly not believed

by the Court below because the said document was not put to the

respondent workman in his cross-examination. The respondent workman

could not have been taken by surprise by the management by relying on

the purported appointment letter Ex. MW-1/3, for the first time, in its

evidence.

6. The third fact discussed in the impugned award is the attendance

register Ex. MW-1/1. This attendance register Ex. MW-1/1 was for the

period from May 2005 to July 2005. The petitioner management

deliberately did not produce the attendance register for the period prior

to May 2005 as it knew that in case the attendance register for the period

prior to May 2005 is produced then it will belie its contention that the

respondent workman was employed only on 17.05.2005.

7. On the basis of the above three important facts mentioned in the

impugned award, the Court below has rightly reached to a conclusion

that the services of the respondent workman were illegally terminated by

the management and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service

with 50% back wages.

8. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any perversity or illegality in

the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in

exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby

dismissed in limine.

9. The stay application as well as application seeking time for filing of

legible copies and true typed copies of dim annexures, are rendered

infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

OCTOBER 13, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'