Management Of M/S Ashok Hotel vs Delhi Administration & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2488 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             + W.P.(C)2076/2003

%                                            Date of decision: 10th May, 2010

MANAGEMENT OF M/S ASHOK HOTEL               ..... Petitioner
               Through: Mr. Amit Seth, Advocate
                                    Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                Through: None.
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      No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner employer by this writ petition impugns the award

dated 4th April, 2001 of the Labour Court holding the termination by the

petitioner employer of the respondents 4(i) Abdul Sayyed, 4(ii) Balwant

Singh & 4(iii) Ram Kumar to be bad and directing the petitioner employer

to reinstate the respondent no.4 (i) Abdul Sayyed with 50% back wages,

respondent no.4 (ii) Balwant Singh with 40% back wages & respondent

no.4 (iii) Ram Kumar without any back wages.

2. This Court vide order dated 21st March, 2003 while issuing notice of

the petition stayed the operation of the award subject to the petitioner

employer depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in this Court which was

directed to be kept in the fixed deposit. The counsel for the petitioner

employer states that the said amount was so deposited. Though initially the

counsel for all the three respondent workmen appeared before this Court

but the application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act was filed on behalf of

respondent no.4 (ii) Balwant Singh & respondent no.4(iii) Ram Kumar

only and similarly the counter affidavit to the writ petition is supported by

the affidavits of the respondent no.4(ii) Balwant Singh & respondent

no.4(iii) Ram Kumar only. However, I find that the Vakalatnama of the

advocate is on behalf of all the three respondent workmen. Vide order

dated 30th November, 2005, the applications of the respondent no.4 (ii)

Balwant Singh & respondent no.4 (iii) Ram Kumar under Section 17B of

the I.D. Act were allowed and the petitioner employer was directed to pay

to the said respondents last drawn wages / minimum wages whichever is

higher with effect from the date of the award i.e. 4 th April, 2001 onwards.

The counsel for the petitioner employer states that the payment has been so

made. The same was of course subject to the said respondents 4(ii) & 4(iii)

refunding to the petitioner employer the excess amount, if any, received

over and above the last drawn wages in the event of this petition

succeeding. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 18th September, 2006.

3. None has appeared today for the contesting respondent workmen

inspite of pass over. They are proceeded against ex parte.

4. The counsel for the petitioner employer has drawn attention to order

dated 16th April, 2010 in WP(C) No.6686/2003 also preferred by the

petitioner employer with respect to an award in favour of certain other

workmen. The said award was for reinstatement with full back wages in

favour of five workmen and reinstatement with 75% back wages in favour

of the sixth workman. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that

the dispute of the petitioner employer with the contesting respondent

workmen herein is same as the dispute between the petitioner employer

with the contesting respondents in WP(C) No.6686/2003 decided on 16th

April, 2010. The award in favour of the contesting respondents in WP(C)

No.6686/2003 was modified from that of reinstatement and back wages to

that of payment of a lumpsum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of each of

the workmen made payable within six weeks thereof.

5. Though the said order dated 16th April, 2010 was with the consent of

the counsel for the respondent workmen in that case but considering the

fact that the workmen in both the cases were daily wagers and similarly

placed, I see no reason for a different view in the present case. However,

in WP(C) No.6686/2003 there was no order under Section 17B of the I.D.

Act and the respondent workmen in lieu of lumpsum payment of

Rs.2,50,000/- had also given up their claims under Section 17B of the I.D.

Act. In the present case, the respondent no.4(ii) & respondent no.4(iii)

have received payments under Section 17B of the I.D. Act for

approximately nine years and which payments would be in excess of

Rs.3,00,000/-. Also, in WP(C) No.6686/2003, the award was for full back

wages; in the present case as aforesaid, the award is for 50% or 40% or no

back wages.

6. Accordingly, the award impugned in the present writ petition is

modified as under:

(i) The respondent no.4 (i) Abdul Sayyed, the award in whose

favour was for reinstatement with 50% back wages and who

has not received any payment under Section 17B of the I.D.

Act, shall be entitled to lumpsum payment of Rs.1,75,000/-

from the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, back wages etc.

(ii) The respondent no.4(ii) Balwant Singh, the award in whose

favour is for reinstatement with 40% back wages and who as

aforesaid has received over Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 17B

of the I.D. Act, shall be entitled to lumpsum payment of

Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, back

wages etc.

(iii) The respondent no.4(iii) Ram Kumar, the award in whose

favour is for reinstatement without any back wages and who

also under Section 17B of the I.D. Act has received payment

of Rs.3,00,000/-, shall be entitled to lumpsum payment of

Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, back

wages etc.

7. The aforesaid amounts be paid within six weeks of today. If the

payment is not made within six weeks, the petitioner employer shall also

incur 7% simple interest. It is clarified that the aforesaid compensation is

in full and final settlement and in lieu of claims of the aforesaid respondent

workmen for back wages, reinstatement or otherwise and on receipt of the

said amounts the aforesaid respondent workmen shall be left with no

claims whatsoever against the petitioner employer.

8. The petitioner employer, upon making the aforesaid payments shall

be entitled to refund of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited in this Court together with

interest, if any, accrued thereon.

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 10th May, 2010 gsr