M/S Shubham Enterprises vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4239 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 7319/2008

%                  Date of Decision: 21st OCTOBER, 2009


#     M/S SHUBHAM ENTERPRISES
                                                         .....PETITIONER

!                  Through:   Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$     GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & 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) W.P.(C.) No. 7319/2008 and C.M. No. 14193/2008 (for stay)

The management of M/s Shubham Enterprises, in this writ petition,

seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 19.03.2008 in I.D. No.

15/2006 directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with 50%

back wages.

2. This writ petition was filed by the management about a year back

in October 2008. Since then till now the counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner had been taking date after date on one or the other

pretext. The case was listed yesterday and even yesterday, the date was

taken by the counsel appearing for counsel for the petitioner. On the

request of the counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned

yesterday for admission hearing for today. Even today, the counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, requests for an adjournment

stating that the petitioner is negotiating with the respondent for some

amicable settlement. This, in my opinion, cannot be a ground for

adjournment for admission hearing in a matter which is pending for the

last about one year. I have carefully gone through the impugned award

assailed by the management in the present writ petition. On going

through the said award, I find that the plea of the management before

the Labour Court was the denial of relationship of employer and

employee between the parties. This plea taken by the management

before the Labour Court was rightly rejected on account of the testimony

of WW-2 (Labour Inspector) who had deposed that the proprietor of the

management firm namely Mr. Mohal lal has made a statement before the

Labour Inspector in the conciliation proceedings that the workman was

working with the management for the last four years. This testimony of

the Labour Inspector before the Labour Court has remained

unchallenged. In that view of the matter, 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.

3. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.

The stay application is also dismissed.

OCTOBER 21, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'