Sohan Puri vs Labour Commissioner And Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2313 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Date of decision: 29th April, 2011.

+                  W.P.(C) 7038/2009 & CM No.2494/2009 (for stay)

%        SOHAN PURI                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                      Through:    Mr. Rajal Rai Dua, Advocate

                                             Versus

         LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ANR.         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Sumil Kumar, Adv. for R-2.

                                                 AND

+                     W.P.(C) 7039/2009 & CM No.2496/2009 (for stay)

%        SOHAN PURI                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                      Through:    Mr. Rajal Rai Dua, Advocate

                                             Versus

    LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ANR.           ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Sumil Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                               No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                              No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                             No
         in the Digest?

W.P.(C)7038/2009 & W.P.(C)7039/2009                                      Page 1 of 8
 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitions seek quashing of the Recovery Certificates, dated 20 th

February, 2007 in W.P.(C) No.7038/2009 and dated 4 th May, 2006 in

W.P.(C) No.7039/2009 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner of

the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on the application of the respondent No.2 in

each case, for recovery of `1,76,703 in W.P.(C) No.7038/2009 and

`85,907/- in W.P.(C) No.7039/2009.

2. The respondent No.2 was employed with one M/s Genius Industries,

B-97/3, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Disputes which had

arisen between the respondent No.2 in each case and the said M/s Genius

Industries were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Adjudicator.

The Industrial Adjudicator vide award dated 5th February, 2005 in W.P.(C)

No.7038/2009 and 31st August, 2002 in W.P.(C) No.7039/2009 directed

the said M/s Genius Industries to reinstate the respondent No.2 in each

case into service with full back wages. The respondent No.2 applied for

implementation of the said awards.

3. It appears that the respondent No.2 in each case filed an affidavit

before the Labour Commissioner to the effect that the management of M/s

Genius Industries had shifted business and started work in the name and

style of M/s Satyam Cable Industries at plot No.397, Phase-II, Sector-37,

Gurgaon, Haryana. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sohan Puri who

claims to be the proprietor of M/s Satyam Cable Industries has stated that

no notice of the proceedings before the Labour Commissioner was issued

to the petitioner / M/s Satyam Cable Industries. Be that as it may, the

Labour Commissioner on the basis of the said affidavit of the respondent

No.2 in each case issued the Recovery Certificate for the amount due under

the said awards against the said M/s Satyam Cable Industries

4. When the Recovery Certificates were sought to be executed against

the petitioner / M/s Satyam Cable Industries, the present writ petitions

were filed.

5. Notice of the petitions was issued and the execution of the Recovery

Certificates stayed.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that business in the name and style of

M/s Genius Industries was being carried on by his brothers and he had no

concern with the same. The petitioner claims that he has since long been

carrying on business in Guwahati (Assam) in the name of M/s Satyam

Electronics Corporation and thereafter in Gurgaon in the name of Satyam

Cable Industries and the petitioner or the said M/s Satyam Cable Industries

has got nothing to do with M/s Genius Industries and the affidavit filed by

the respondent No.2 workman in each case before the Labour

Commissioner, on the basis whereof the Recovery Certificates were issued

are false.

7. The respondent No.2 in each case in their affidavits have refuted the

aforesaid contentions of the petitioner and have stated that the petitioner

along with his brothers was carrying on the business in the name of M/s

Genius Industries and the business in the name of M/s Satyam Electronics

Corporation at Guwahati (Assam) was none other than of the sale of the

goods manufactured / produced by the said M/s Genius Industries.

8 The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the aforesaid counter

affidavits of the respondents No.2. The counsel for the petitioner states

that no rejoinder is needed because the respondents no.2 have not placed

anything to show the involvement of the petitioner in the business of M/s

Genius Industries.

9. In the present case, it is not as if M/s Genius Industries is a stranger

to the petitioner. The petitioner also admits that the business in the name

and style of M/s Genius Industries was being carried on by his brothers.

Workmen such as respondents no.2 are not expected to know the complete

details of the constitution of the said M/s Genius Industries and it is for the

petitioner to produce all the materials/documents to show as to what was

the constitution of M/s Genius Industries and if the business in the name of

M/s Genius Industries was being carried on by his brother and to also

furnish the whereabouts/particulars and the business now being carried on

by his brother/s. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is

willing to furnish all the said details/particulars. It is significant that the

petitioner has not chosen to file rejoinder to the averment in the counter

affidavits of the respondents no.2 of the business of M/s Satyam

Electronics Corporation stated to have been renamed as M/s Satyam Cable

Industries being of sale of goods produced by M/s Genius Industries.

10. The same indicates that the petitioner is not disputing the said fact.

11. It is also significant that it is nowhere the case of the petitioner that

there are any disputes and animosity between him and his brother.

12. It is felt that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner was to

approach the Labour Commissioner but the petitioner instead chose to

obtain stay of the Recovery Certificates and owing whereto the

implementation of the award has been held up unnecessarily for the last

over two years.

14. However, it is not deemed expedient to conduct enquiry on the

aforesaid aspects in the present jurisdiction. It is appropriate that the

petitioner discloses all the material in his power and possession including

the whereabouts / particulars of his brother/s who is/are stated to have been

carrying on business in the name of M/s Genius Industries before the

Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner on the basis of the

material produced adjudicates as to against whom and in what manner

awards are to be executed.

15. The petitions are therefore disposed of by directing the parties to

appear before the Labour Commissioner who had issued the Recovery

Certificates on 18th May, 2011. The Labour Commissioner is directed to

enquire into the matter including on all the aforesaid aspect. Since

sufficient time has already lapsed, the Labour Commissioner is further

directed to complete the inquiry on or before 31 st July 2011. Till then the

execution of the Recovery Certificates shall remain stayed. If the Labour

Commissioner upon the said enquiry finds that the awards are to be

executed against the petitioner also, the petitioner through counsel

undertakes to this Court to make the payment within 45 days of such

finding subject to orders in challenge if any by the petitioner to the said

finding. However, if it is found that the awards are not executable against

the petitioner, the Labour Commissioner shall withdraw the Recovery

Certificates issued against petitioner and shall proceed to implement the

awards against the persons liable thereunder.

16. The petitions are disposed of. The petitioner to also pay costs of

these proceedings of `7,500/- to each of the respondent workman before

the Labour Commissioner on the next date of hearing. The petitioner, if

entitled to, will have liberty to recover the said costs from his brother/s.

Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) APRIL 29, 2011 gsr