Praveen Kumar @ Amar Pal vs Amar Dev Chauhan & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3124 Del

*           HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) No. 6225/2008


%                             Pronounced on: 06.07.2010

PRAVEEN KUMAR @ AMAR PAL                            ...Petitioner
                Through:         Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, Adv. with
                                 petitioner in person.

                    Versus


AMAR DEV CHAUHAN & ANOTHER                 ....Respondents
                Through:  None for respondent no.1.
                          Ms. Mamta Tandon, proxy counsel
                          for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. for
                          respondent no.2.


Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?


MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking

direction for quashing the impugned notices dated 03.06.2008 and

01.07.2008 and also seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 i.e.

Labour Department, not to initiate/effect any recovery on the basis

of the Award dated 19.08.2004 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.

No. 307/2004.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent no.1/workman

had been working with M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises, Plot No. 146,

Jain Nagar, Karala Road, Delhi-110081 on the post Mistri w.e.f.

18.05.1997 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 2000/- per month.

3. The case of the workman is that when he demanded

various statutory benefits such as appointment letter, wages on

register, earned leave etc., the management got annoyed and

without issuance of prior notice or charge sheet or assigning any

reason, terminated his services on 18.07.1998.

4. He went to the Management seeking to be placed back

at his duties but despite various visits, the Management refused to

reinstate him. Thereafter he issued a notice to the Management

dated 29.07.1998 by registered post. The Management did not

reply to the same nor he was reinstated nor were any wages paid

to him.

5. The workman filed a claim before the Conciliation

Officer. The conciliation proceedings resulted in failure due to the

adamant attitude of the Management. Left with no other option,

the workman initiated action against the Management for

violation of the provisions of Section 25 (F)(G) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and industrial dispute between the

Management i.e. Arya Oilseal Enterprises, Plot No. 146, Jain Nagar

and the workman/Sh. Amar Dev Chauhan was referred for

adjudication vide reference no. F.24 (1017)/99-Lab/99-Lab/13204-8

dated 19.03.1999.

6. Notice was issued to the Management for appearance.

On 05.06.2002, despite service of the notice, no one appeared on

behalf of the Management and the Management was proceeded

against ex-parte.

7. The statement of the workman was recorded in court as

WW1 and his affidavit was also proved as WW1/A and A1. The

copy of the demand notice dated 29.07.1998 sent to the

Management by registered post has been proved as exhibit

WW1/2. Postal receipt has been proved as WW1/1. Copy of claim

filed before the Conciliation Officer has been proved as Ex. WW1/3,

copy of complaint dated 20.07.1998 filed before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner has been proved as Ex. WW1/4.

8. The award was passed on 19.08.2004 and relief was

granted to the respondent no.1 herein to the extent that he was

held entitled to reinstatement and also for back wages at the rate

of 50% of the last wage drawn w.e.f. 18.07.1998 onwards till his

reinstatement.

9. Two notices dated 03.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 were

issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,

Labour Department: Implementation Cell, 5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi

for reinstatement as well as recovery of back wages amounting to

Rs. 81,133/- were issued.

10. Challenging the said notices Mr. Praveen Kumar who

claim himself to be Praveen Kumar @ Amar Pal filed the present

writ petition.

11. The main contention of the petitioner is that he has no

concern with M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises nor did he have

anything to do with the said industrial dispute and the said notices

have been served upon him are totally illegal, unjustified, contrary

to the settled principles of law and natural justice and liable to be

quashed. His submission is that the said notices ought to have

been issued against M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises and not against

the petitioner. The respondent no.2, therefore, erred in sending

the impugned notices to the petitioner at his residential address ie.

Plot No. 145, Jain Nagar, Karala Road, Delhi - 110081 whereas the

address of M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises as mentioned in the award

is 146, Jain Nagar, Karala Road, Delhi - 110081.

12. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the

name of the petitioner is mentioned as Praveen Kumar @ Amar Pal

S/o. Sh. Munni Lal. Along with the writ petition he has also filed

some documents of educational qualification in order to show the

age of the petitioner and the name of the father of the petitioner

as Munni Lal.

13. The respondent no.1/workman has filed the counter

affidavit and briefly stated that he got employed by the

Management M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises at 655/3-A Punjabi Basti,

Gali No.4, Anand Parvat Colony, Delhi on 18.05.1997 which was

later on shifted in Plot No. 145-146, Jain Nagar, Karala Road, Delhi.

14. According to him, the Management i.e. M/s. Arya Oilseal

Enterprises had both the plots and now the petitioner is showing

only Plot No. 145 in order to deceive the respondent no.1 and

mislead this court. His further submission is that the name of the

employer of the Management is/was Munni Lal @ Amar Pal. The

petitioner herein Praveen Kumar is intentionally stating his name

as Praveen Kumar @ Amar Pal. Earlier he had never referred to or

stated his name with the alias Amar Pal. In support of his

contention some documents are placed on record.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have

perused the award passed by the Labour Court dated 19.08.2004.

It is an undisputed fact that an industrial dispute was raised

between the Management/M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises and the

respondent no.1. It is a matter of fact that despite service of

impugned notices referred above, no one appeared on behalf of

the Management and it was proceeded against ex-parte. It

appears from the record that Sh. Munni Lal is/was the proprietor of

the said firm. His name is mentioned as Munni Lal @ Amar Pal or

Amar Pal @ Munni Lal in various documents placed on record by

the respondent no.1. The award has been passed against the firm

M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises. The petitioner Praveen Kumar is the

son of Mr. Munni Lal. His school certificate shows his name as

Praveen Kumar. No cogent evidence has been produced by him

to prove that he is known as Praveen Kumar @ Amar Pal. The

implementation notices dated 03.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 are

admittedly issued to Amar Pal @ Munni Lal and in the name of the

firm at both the addresses i.e. Plot No. 145 and 146.

16. It is pertinent to mention that nowhere the name of the

petitioner Praveen Kumar is mentioned in the implementation

notices nor is it the case of the petitioner before this court that he

was involved in the industrial dispute with the respondent no.1.

His case is that the said notices were served at the wrong place,

hence the present writ petition is filed. He has not denied the fact

that his father Mr. Munni Lal was the proprietor of the said firm.

He has also not denied the fact that his father Munni Lal and his

firm has/had never carried out its business from the Plot No. 145.

One fails to understand as to how the present writ petition filed by

Praveen Kumar is maintainable as he has nothing to do with the

industrial dispute on the subject matter. The two impugned

notices dated 03.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 had not been issued in

the name of the Praveen Kumar nor has the petitioner Praveen

Kumar given any justification for filing the writ petition against the

award which was passed on the basis of industrial dispute between

the respondent no.1 and M/s. Arya Oilseal Enterprises. Further,

the award was passed on 19.08.2004 and writ petition was filed on

23.08.2008 i.e. more than four years after the passing of the

award. No application for condonation of delay was filed by the

petitioner.

17. The petition is totally misconceived, false and frivolous

and is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with

cost of Rs. 10,000/-. However, it is made clear that the

respondents are entitled to strict enforcement of the award passed

against the management or against its partners/proprietor.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

JULY 06, 2010 dp