Delhi High Court
M/S Chetan Industries vs Shri Ayodhya & Ors. on 3 February, 2010
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 673/2010
% Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2010
M/s Chetan Industries ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Kalra, Advocate
versus
Shri Ayodhya & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned Award passed by
the labour Court No. VII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.
43/2007 whereby the labour Court has awarded an amount of Rs.
40,000/- towards compensation in favour of the respondent workman
and against the petitioner management to be payable by the
petitioner management within a period of one month of the
publication of the Award, failing which interest rate of 9% has been
awarded on the amount of compensation.
2. Mr. V.K. Kalra, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that respondent No. 1 was a casual worker and was employed by the
petitioner on temporary basis on 6.4.2003. Counsel further submitted
that respondent No. 1 had worked only for 105 days (including
Sunday and holidays) during the period w.e.f. 6 th April, 2003 to 21st
April, 2004 whereafter he never resumed his duties. Counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 2
have independent identities and so far employment of respondent No.
1 with respondent No. 2 is concerned and he had duly admitted the
fact that after submitting his resignation letter dated 11.2.2000, he
had received full and final wages and other dues amounting to Rs.
11,803/-. Counsel further submitted that the onus was on the
respondent workman to prove the fact that he had served the
petitioner management for 240 days preceding the date of his alleged
termination, but he had failed to discharge the said onus. Counsel
thus submitted that the Award passed by the labour Court is illegal
and not tenable in the eyes of law.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable
length and gone through the records.
4. The respondent workman had raised an industrial dispute
against his illegal termination and the case set up by the respondent
workman before the Tribunal was that he had joined respondent No. 2
in July, 1992 on the post of a machine man and later on he started
working with the petitioner management i.e. M/s Chetan Industries,
which is in the same premises. The respondent workman was
provided with the ESI facilities, but the same were terminated by
respondent No. 2 management in the year 2001. Thereafter, a fresh
ESI card was provided to the respondent workman by the petitioner
management, where a fresh date of appointment was shown as that
from April, 2003. The counsel for the respondent workman further
submitted that since he had been demanding some legal facilities,
therefore, feeling annoyed with him, the management terminated his
services on 5.7.2006.
5. The case of the petitioner management on the other hand was
that the respondent workman had voluntarily resigned from
respondent No. 2 management on 11.2.2000 and he had in fact
accepted his dues amounting to Rs. 11,803/-.
6. Then on being approached by the respondent workman
sometime in March/April, 2003, he was employed by the petitioner
management. The petitioner management also took a stand that the
respondent left the job on 21st February, 2004 voluntarily and,
therefore, he had worked only for 105 days w.e.f. 6.4.2003 to
21.2.2004. Counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked a question
to disclose the relation and connection between the two managements
and he then apprised this Court that in fact the sole proprietor of
respondent No. 2 management is none else but the son of Mr. S.N.
Gupta, who is the proprietor of the petitioner M/s Chetan Industries.
Nowhere in the present petition this connection has been disclosed by
the petitioner. It is thus quite apparent that to deprive the respondent
workman permanent employment and other statutory benefits, his
services were placed by respondent No. 2 management with the
petitioner management. Counsel for the petitioner also failed to
satisfy this Court as to why the respondent workman was not recalled
on his duty when he was alleged to have left the job on 21 st February,
2004 without giving anything in writing. No such suggestion was
given by the petitioner management to the respondent workman in his
cross-examination suggesting that he himself had abandoned the job.
7. I do not find any substance in the pleas raised by the counsel for
the petitioner as there is no illegality or perversity in the findings
given by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the present petition and
the same is hereby dismissed.
February 03, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR J.
rkr
