Delhi High Court
Rajinder Kumar Arora vs M/S Air Liquide India Holding Pvt ... on 10 January, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) No.96/2011
Date of Decision: January 10, 2011
RAJINDER KUMAR ARORA ......Petitioner
through Mr. M A Khan, Advocate
versus
M/S AIR LIQUIDE INDIA HOLDING PVT LTD AND ORS
.....Respondents
through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the 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 in the „Digest‟? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court
No.IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated August 28, 2010. Two issues
were framed by the Labour Court, namely, "whether the claimant was
not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 as claimed by the management?" and, "whether the services
of the claimant were terminated by the management on 11.01.2005
illegal and unjustifiably? And if so, to what effect." The finding on both
the issues has gone in favour of the Management and against the
petitioner.
A perusal of the impugned award goes to show that the
petitioner was employed by the respondents as Deputy Manager
WP(C) No.96/2011 Page 1
(Administration) in November, 1995. The petitioner does not dispute
that he was so employed. His contention is that his appointment as
Deputy Manager (Administration) was only in name and that for all
practical purposes, he was a workman under section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court afforded opportunity
to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his said contention.
In response the only evidence that he led was in the form of his own
affidavit which was taken as his examination-in-chief. He was
subjected to cross-examination and one of the dates fixed for his
cross-examination was July 07, 2010. He failed to appear on the said
date. Of course, a request was made on his behalf for adjournment,
but the same was declined by the Labour Court on the ground that
issues were framed in the case on October 31, 2005 and from
January 31, 2006 till July 07, 2010, several opportunities were given to
him to conclude his evidence but he failed to do so. Accordingly, his
evidence was closed and the case was adjourned to August 19, 2010
for evidence of the Management. The Management also failed to
produce any evidence on the date fixed. Consequently, the impugned
award dated August 28, 2010 was passed.
It is stated that the petitioner could not appear on July 07, 2010
as he had to leave India due to some unavoidable circumstances.
However, what were those circumstances which compelled him to
leave India were not spelt out. In the absence of virtually no
explanation from the petitioner justifying his leaving the country while
he was under cross-examination and not appearing on July 07, 2010,
I am of the view that the Labour Court having regard to the fact that
from January 31, 2006 till July 07, 2010, several opportunities were
WP(C) No.96/2011 Page 2
granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, rightly closed his
evidence. Since the cross-examination of the petitioner could not be
concluded, the Labour Court also held that his affidavit could not be
read in evidence and consequently, further held that there was no
evidence on record to support his case that he was a workman under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
I find no infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the
writ-petition. The same is dismissed.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 10, 2011
PC/ka
WP(C) No.96/2011 Page 3
