Mec Electric Contracts Pvt. Ltd. vs Teh National Territory Of Delhi & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 476 Del

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         W.P. (C ) NO. 548/2010

                          Judgment delivered on :28 January, 2010


MEC Electric Contracts Pvt.Ltd.                                               ......Petitioner

                               Through: Mr.Sanjay, Advocate

                               Versus

The National Territory of
Delhi & 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 writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award

dated 22.01.2001 passed by the Labour Court whereby the respondent

workman was directed to be reinstated along with 50% back wages.

2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the

respondent/workman was employed by the petitioner as a driver on a

monthly salary of Rs.1000/-. The services of respondent workman were

terminated and he raised an industrial dispute where the stand taken by the

petitioner was that there existed no relationship of an employer and

employee between the petitioner and the respondent workman. The Labour

Court vide order dated 22.1.2001 directed the petitioner to reinstate the

respondent workman. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present

petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Sanjay, counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

petitioner i.e. MEC Electric Contracts Pvt. Ltd. was never the employer of

the respondent workman and even as per the own case of the

respondent/workman, he was employed with M/s MAC Electrical Contracts

Private Ltd. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a private limited

company and was registered with the Registrar of Companies on

18.07.1989 and the receipts issued by the respondent workman himself

were executed by him acknowledging the receipt of salary or other

payments from one Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, of whom the respondent was in

personal employment. Counsel further submits that even the award is not

enforceable against the petitioner under Section 33 (C ) of the I.D. Act after

the expiry of one year period. Counsel further submits that even no notice

of recovery was issued. Counsel further submits that even the

respondent/workman had failed to prove that he had worked for a period

240 days which is the mandatory requirement to get the benefit of Section

25 F of the I.D. Act.

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the

records.

5. The case set up by the respondent/workman was that he was

earlier employed by M/s MAC Engineers, D-61, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-7 on

19.05.1987 on the post of driver on a monthly salary of Rs.1000/-. He was

further informed that the name of the said firm was changed to M/s MAC

Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. from M/s MAC Engineers. He has also stated

that his salary was being paid by the earlier employer M/s MAC Engineers or

by M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that his salary

was not paid for the months of December, 1988, February, 1989 and for 12

days of September, 1989. The workman sent a notice of demand to M/s

MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. and in the previous claim i.e. I.D. No.

491/1990 he had impleaded M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. as a

respondent but the said reference was withdrawn by him as he wanted to

implead M/s MAC Engineers as well. Both the managements i.e. M/s MAC

Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MAC Engineers filed their respective

written statements and contested the claim of the workman. The case of the

petitioner before the Labour Court was that the respondent at the most was

in the personal employment of Mr. Anil Bhardwaj and not of the company.

However, it was not denied that Mr. Anil Bhardwaj was the Director of the

petitioner company. No such plea was taken by Mr. Anil Bhardwaj claiming

personal employment of the respondent/workman when the written

statement was filed earlier in I.D. No. 491/1990. One of the witness

produced by the management i.e. Mahinder Singh admitted the fact that

the business was being run in the name and style of M/s MAC Engineers in

the year 1989 and the same was later incorporated as M/s MAC Electrical

Contracts Private Limited Company on 18.07.1989. The said witness also

admitted the signatures of the respondent workman on the attendance

register of the petitioner company. In the face of such admitted facts the

contention of the petitioner that the respondent was not in its employment is

palpably false. The petitioner is just trying to take advantage of the fact

that before the Labour Court the name of the petitioner company was

mentioned as M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. instead of M/s MEC

Electric Contracts Pvt. Ltd. and hence the plea of the petitioner appears to

be dishonest.

6. So far the other contention of the counsel for the petitioner that

the recovery has not been sought by the respondent within the period of one

year as laid down under section 33 (C ) of the I.D. Act, I do not find

anywhere the the petitioner has taken such a plea that as to when and on

what date the respondent/workman had approached the appropriate

Government to enforce the said award. I do not find any merit in the

submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.

7. Hence in the light of the above, I find the petition devoid of any

merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

JANUARY 28, 2010                               KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
pkv