Delhi High Court
M/S Precision Pressings ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ... on 18 September, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 11792/2009
% Date of Decision: 18 September, 2009
# M/S PRECISION PRESSINGS INDUSTRIES ..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Raj Rishi, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate.
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. 11795/2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 11792/2009
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C.) No. 11792/2009 and C.M. No. 11794/2009 (for stay)
The management in this writ petition seeks to challenge an
industrial award dated 31.05.2008 by which compensation of Rs. 1.25
lakhs has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 2 workman in lieu of
his claim for reinstatement and back wages for illegal termination of his
services w.e.f. 16.06.2002.
2. Heard on admission.
3. The respondent No. 2 workman was employed with the petitioner
as Power Pressman w.e.f. 16.02.1982. After he had worked for more than
17 years with the petitioner, his services were abruptly terminated by the
petitioner w.e.f 16.06.2002. The respondent No. 2 had sent a demand
notice dated 21.06.2002 to the petitioner management to allow him to
join duties and the petitioner management did not concede to the
request of the respondent No. 2 workman made by him in the demand
notice dated 21.06.2002 for his reinstatement. He raised an industrial
dispute with regard to his termination which was referred by the
appropriate Government in the NCT of Delhi to the Labour Court for
adjudication.
4. The management in its written statement filed before the Labour
Court took a plea that the respondent No. 2 workman had been absenting
from the duties w.e.f 21.05.2002 and according to the petitioner
management, the respondent No. 2 was not terminated from service as
alleged by him.
5. The issue before the Court below was whether the services of the
respondent No. 2 workman were terminated by the petitioner
management or he had abandoned the services of the petitioner
management of his own. It may be noted that the petitioner
management did not produce any evidence before the Labour Court to
prove its contention that the respondent No. 2 workman had abandoned
the service of his own. The petitioner in its petition in ground (xii) at
page 6 of the Paper Book has admitted that he was granted two
opportunities by the Court below to produce its evidence before the
evidence of the petitioner management was closed vide order dated
23.05.2008. Since the petitioner management failed to produce any
evidence to prove its plea of abandonment, I do not find any perversity in
the impugned award by which it has been held that the services of
respondent No. 2 workman were illegally terminated by the petitioner
management. The plea of the petitioner management regarding
abandonment even otherwise cannot be believed because the
respondent No. 2 workman after serving for 17 long years with the
petitioner could not be believed to have left the services suddenly and in
case, if what the petitioner management contends regarding
abandonment is correct, then the respondent No. 2 workman would not
have raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination.
6. The Court below has found the termination of respondent No. 2
workman to be illegal. However, in stead of granting relief of
reinstatement to him, the Court below in its wisdom has awarded a
compensation of Rs. 1.25 lakhs in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and
back wages. This compensation of Rs. 1.25 lakhs awarded in favour of
respondent No. 2 workman by no means can be said to be excessive or
on higher side.
7. In view of what has been stated 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.
SEPTERMBER 18, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'
