Smt. Phool Kumari & Ors. vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2688 Del

               *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                W.P.(C) 6697/2000

%                                                 Date of decision: 20th May, 2010

SMT. PHOOL KUMARI & ORS.                            ..... Petitioners
                   Through: Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, Advocate.

                                         Versus

THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-IX & 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 workman by this writ petition impugned the award dated

22nd September, 1999 of the Labour Court on the following reference:-

"Whether the termination of services of Sh. Chhotey Lal is legal and justified and if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?"

2. It was the claim of the petitioner workman that he was employed with

the respondent no.2 employer as Helper at last drawn salary of Rs.190/- per

month; that he was actively involved in the activities of the union of the

employees owing whereto the respondent no.2 employer terminated his

services w.e.f. 24th November, 1979 without any reason and without

conducting any enquiry. The respondent No.2 employer contested the said

claim by contending that a charge sheet dated 25th September, 1979 was

issued and the workman was suspended pending enquiry; that the petitioner

workman indulged in further misconduct and subsequent charge sheets dated

15th October, 1979 and 24th October, 1979 were issued to him; the petitioner

workman however, did not participate in the enquiry; thereafter some

negotiation started and an amicable settlement was arrived at and the

petitioner workman received amount in full and final settlement of all his

claims. Subsequently, a plea was also taken that the manufacturing unit of the

respondent employer had closed down.

3. The petitioner workman during the pendency of proceedings before the

Labour Court filed an application stating that the respondent No.2 employer

company was thereunder liquidation and a Receiver had been appointed and

for impleading the said Receiver. Notice of the said application was issued to

the Receiver. The Receiver filed an affidavit stating that he was only an

Interim Receiver. The Receiver was impleaded as an additional party before

the Labour Court. The respondent No.2 employer was thereafter proceeded

against ex-parte before the Labour Court and the matter was listed for

evidence of the petitioner workman. The petitioner workman also did not lead

any evidence, which was closed.

4. The Labour Court vide the impugned award, in the absence of evidence

from either party and in view of the admitted position that the management

had closed, held that the petitioner workman was not entitled of reinstatement

or any relief.

5. Aggrieved from the award, the present petition has been filed. Besides

the respondent No.2 employer, Punjab & Sind Bank, whose Manager was

appointed as Receiver, has been impleaded as respondent No.3. However, on

15th January, 2010, finding that no relief had been claimed against respondent

No.3, it was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

6. Thought it was the case of the petitioner workman himself before the

Labour Court that the respondent No.2 employer company was under

liquidation, but surprisingly the respondent No.2 employer company has been

impleaded to be served as itself and not through Receiver or Liquidator.

Notices sent to the respondent No.2 employer could not be served till now and

have been returned unserved, sometimes with the report that the company had

left the address given and sometimes with the report that there is no such

company at the address. The writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution

on 19th December, 2005 holding that the petitioner did not appear to be

interested in pursuing the petition. Thereafter an application for restoration of

the petition was filed. Since the respondent No.2 employer had not been

served with the notice of the writ petition till then, the writ petition was

restored and fresh notices were directed to be issued to the respondent No.2

employer. The presence of an Advocate for the respondent No.2 employer has

been recorded in the orders dated 8th January, 2007 and 20th April, 2007.

However, no Vakalatnama of the said Advocate is on record. The petitioner

workman died during the pendency of the petition and application for

substitution of his legal representatives was filed. The same was allowed in

the absence of the respondent No.2 employer. Notice was again ordered to be

issued to the respondent No.2 employer on 23rd September, 2009 and 15th

January, 2010. The notices remain unserved.

7. The present status of the respondent No.2 employer company and/or of

the proceedings earlier informed of liquidation was enquired from the counsel

for the petitioner. He states that he has no instructions.

8. The case of the petitioner workman in the writ petition in any case, is

that the Labour Court ought to have given further opportunity to the petitioner

to lead evidence and wrongly closed the evidence of the petitioner workman.

Even if the writ petition was to be allowed, the matter will have to be

remanded to the Labour Court. However, this Court is of the view that no

purpose would be served therefrom since the termination of the petitioner

workman was more than 30 years ago. The reference of the dispute was also

made after more than 30 years ago. The petitioner workman has already died.

The existence status of the respondent No.2 employer is not known. The

present petitioners are also found to have not pursued this petition diligently

for the last 10 years. It is highly unlikely that after such long lapse of time

they will be in a position to lead any evidence.

9. From a perusal of the award of the Labour Court also, no merits are

found in the petition. The matter remained pending before the Labour Court

also for 19 years. As per the award the respondent No.2 employer was

proceeded ex parte on 18th October, 1993, the award as aforesaid is dated 22nd

September, 1999. The petitioner workman thus had 6 years to lead his

evidence. No ground is found to give another opportunity now to the legal

representatives of the petitioner workman who may not even now be in a

position to give any evidence.

10. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 20th May, 2010 bs