Ranutrol Industries Tld. vs Bahadur Singh & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3775 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 5th August, 2011.

+      W.P.(C) 1476/2008, CM No.10897/2010 (of the petitioner for
       modification) & CM No.10898/2010 (of the petitioner u/S 340
       Cr.P.C.)

%      RANUTROL INDUSTRIES TLD.                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Gulshan Chawla, Adv.

                                 Versus

    BAHADUR SINGH & ANR.               ..... Respondents
                 Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may              Not necessary
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
       in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The report of the notice of CM Nos.10897-98/2010 issued to the

respondent no.1 workman is still awaited.

2. The writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 14 th

February, 2005 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the petitioner employer

to have illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the respondent

no.1 workman and directing the petitioner employer to reinstate the

respondent no.1 workman with full back wages and continuity of service.

3. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 24 th February,

2008, subject to the petitioner employer depositing the entire awarded

amount in this Court, the operation of the award was stayed. The counsel

for the petitioner employer states that in pursuance to the said order a sum of

`1,30,000/- was deposited in the Court.

4. The respondent no.1 workman applied under Section 17B. On 17th

July, 2009 the petitioner employer offered to reinstate the respondent no.1

workman without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the writ petition.

However vide order dated 27th January, 2010 the petitioner employer was

directed to make payment under Section 17B. The writ petition was directed

to be listed in due course.

5. The matter was thereafter listed on 3rd June, 2010 when the counsel

for the respondent no.1 workman stated that the order under Section 17B had

not been complied with.

6. The petitioner employer thereafter filed CM Nos.10897-98/2010 for

modification of the order under Section 17B and under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

respectively averring inter alia that the respondent no.1 workman had been

employed with M/s Orient Craft Ltd. since 1st April, 1996 and had falsely

stated before this Court that he was unemployed. The respondent workman

on 16th August, 2010 admitted that he had been so gainfully employed.

Accordingly, notice of the said applications was issued and accepted by the

counsel for the respondent no.1 workman and time sought for filing reply.

7. The respondent no.1 workman thereafter stopped appearing in these

proceedings. Though CM Nos.10897-98/2010 were dismissed in default on

8th February, 2011 but none had appeared for the respondent no.1 workman

also before this Court on that date. The said applications were thereafter

restored on 18th March, 2011 and notice issued as aforesaid.

8. In the circumstances aforesaid, need is not felt to adjourn the matter

any further inasmuch as it is felt that the respondent no.1 workman upon the

falsehood practiced by him being detected, is no longer interested in

contesting these proceedings.

9. Accordingly the order under Section 17B is recalled and the writ

petition has been taken up for hearing.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the award of reinstatement and back wages

with effect from the termination in 1992 also cannot be sustained. The writ

petition is accordingly allowed and the award is set aside/quashed. It is

however directed that the amount of `1,30,000/- deposited by the petitioner

employer together with interest thereon be not released/refunded to the

petitioner employer till 31st January, 2012 to await the application if any of

the respondent no.1 workman for revival of the writ petition.

11. As far as the application being CM No.10898/2010 of the petitioner

employer under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, since the writ petition has

been allowed, need is not felt to make any order thereon. It is however

clarified that if the respondent no.1 workman applies for revival of the writ

petition, the said application shall also stand revived.

12. The writ petition is disposed of. Costs of litigation were earlier paid to the respondent no.1 workman.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 05, 2011 bs