M/S Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. vs Shri Gulab Singh & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 966 Del

                      *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                               WP(C) No.14607/2004

%                                             Date of decision: 19th February, 2010

         M/S KRISHNA GEARS PVT. LTD.                                         ..... Petitioner

                          Through:    Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate.

                                          Versus


         SHRI GULAB SINGH & ORS.                                           .... Respondents

                          Through:    Mr. K.C. Dubey & Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocates.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers 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.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This writ petition seeks quashing of the recovery notice dated 7th June, 2004

issued by the respondent No.10 District Tehsildar, Ghaziabad purportedly in enforcement

of the award dated 29th September, 2004 of the Labour Court-II, Delhi. It is the case of

the petitioner M/s Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. that though the disputes had been raised by the

respondents No.1 to 9 workmen qua the management of the petitioner, M/s Krishna

Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. and reference to the following effect

was made -

"Whether the services of Shri Gulab Singh, Jagjit Singh, B.N. Murthy, Kabutar, Mali Ram, Rajinder Prasad, Parkash Chand, Hari Kumar, Ram Murat, Jangli Ram, Ram Kishan, Satya Narain, Phagu, Harmesh Singh, Mohan Prasad, Sunil Kumar Ramjas, Rajinder Singh, Raj Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Suri, Chandershekhar Singh and Tirath Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

but the award is against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales

Pvt. Ltd. only and not against the petitioner and is being wrongly enforced against it.

2. A perusal of the award discloses that it was the claim of the respondents workmen

before the Labour Court that the management of M/s Krishna Engineering Works, M/s

Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner are interconnected with each other with all

three operating from the same premises and that the workmen had been working with

these managements for several years at different posts and their services were

transferable from one management to another. However the Labour Court found that out

of 23 workmen on whose behalf claims were filed only nine had filed their affidavits in

support of the averments and that the claims of the other workmen remained unsupported.

The Labour Court found the workmen whose claims had been substantiated, to be

employed with M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. and

against whom award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages was made.

However so far as the petitioner M/s Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the award

finds that none of its workmen had led any evidence and as such no award against the

petitioner was made. There is award of compensation of Rs.30,000/- for each of the

respondent workmen, who have been found to be employees of M/s Krishna Engineering

Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. only. None of the respondent workmen have

been found to be employees of petitioner.

3. This Court vide order dated 6th September, 2004 while issuing notice of the

petition stayed operation of the award aforesaid only in so far as the petitioner was

concerned. The said order continues to remain in force.

4. In view of the aforesaid unequivocal position, no need was felt to call upon the

counsel for the petitioner to address. The counsel for the respondents workmen who has

filed a counter affidavit opposing the petition was called upon to address as to how the

award aforesaid could be executed against the petitioner. The counsel contends that it

was/is the case of the respondents workmen that there was one management only of all

the three concerns aforesaid including the petitioner and further informs that they all

function from one premises. In the circumstances, he contends that the workmen are

entitled to enforce the award against any of the concerns.

5. Undoubtedly this was the case of the workmen before the Labour Court.

However, the Labour Court neither returned any finding of the management being one

nor returned any finding of any of the workmen in whose favour award had been made,

having at any point of time being the employee of the petitioner or having any claim

against the petitioner. It is also not as if the award is against all the three concerns. The

award is for specific amounts against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna

Sales Pvt. Ltd. separately and the award against the said two concerns cannot be treated

as an award against the petitioner. The contentions of the counsel for the respondents

workmen thus have no force.

6. Faced with the same, the counsel contends that though he will enforce the award

against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. but the

respondents should be awarded interest for the period this petition has remained pending

and for the period that there was an interim order. It may be noted that no interest has

been granted under the award. The said request of the respondents workmen cannot also

be acceded to. M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. are not

even parties to this petition. The petitioner has sought quashing of the recovery under the

award against itself only and not challenged the recovery under the award against M/s

Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. This court also stayed the

operation of the award only in so far as it was against the petitioner and not against M/s

Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. If the respondents workmen

owing to the pendency of the present petition have not enforced the award against whom

it was made they have only themselves to blame. In any case, as aforesaid, the concerns

against whom the award was made are not before this Court and the question of this

Court giving any finding on the entitlement of the respondents workmen qua interest

against the said concerns does not arise in these proceedings.

7. The petition therefore succeeds; a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the

recovery notice dated 7th June, 2004 issued by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad against M/s

Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. purportedly in enforcement of the award dated 29th September,

2004 and it is further declared that that the petitioner M/s Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. has no

liability under the award dated 29th September, 2004. However, in the facts of the case,

the parties are left to bear their own costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th February, 2010 pp