Delhi High Court
Vidur Malik vs Ritika Book House on 4 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2945/2011
VIDUR MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advocate
Versus
RITIKA BOOK HOUSE ..... Respondent
Through: None.
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?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the award dated 27th January, 2010 of the
Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:
"Whether Sh. Vidur Malik, S/o Sh. K.K. Malik has abandoned
his services or his services have been terminated illegally and /
or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
against the petitioner workman.
2. The writ petition has been filed after more than one year and three
months of the award. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished for
the said unusual delay in filing this writ petition. A workman whose
employment is claimed to have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated
is not expected to so delay the proceedings and the delay is indicative of
the present litigation being by way of wager.
3. Admittedly the alleged termination was in the year 1995. The
record shows that the first missive thereafter in the form of letter / legal
notice was sent by the petitioner workman only after seven years in the
year 2002. The counsel for the petitioner also does not controvert the said
fact though claims that the petitioner had been personally representing to
the respondent employer. The long delay of seven years in raising the
dispute is also found to be fatal.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Labour Court
has not dealt with the aspect of delay. Even if that be so, the same is borne
out from the record and stares one in the face. The Supreme Court in U.P.
SRTC Vs. Ram Singh (2008) 17 SCC 627 held that delay in raising the
industrial dispute should not be unreasonable and the fact that the
workman was making repeated representations is not sufficient explanation
for the delay. This Court also in Subhash Chand Vs. GNCT ILR (2005) 2
Del 1 held that prolonged delay would render the dispute extinguished. To
the same effect is the judgment in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs.
Prahlad Singh (2001) 1 SCC 424.
5. The respondent employer was at the relevant time having a Book
Shop in the hotel The Oberoi at Dr. Zakir Hussain Marg, New Delhi and
the petitioner claims to have been employed in the same. Though the
petitioner claimed to be a workman, it was the case of the respondent that
he was employed as a salesman and having two employees under his
supervision and used to manage the said Book Shop on behalf of the
respondent employer. The Industrial Adjudicator however has not given
any finding on the said aspect.
6. It was the case of the employer that the petitioner in the course of his
employment in the year 1995 was guilty of misconduct and action was
threatened against him and he as well as his mother who was also
employed with the respondent chose to voluntarily leave.
7. Though the counsel for the petitioner has during the hearing sought
to contend that the said story of misconduct is false but the long gap of
seven years after which the dispute was raised appears to justify the same.
8. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to page 13 of the
paper book to the portion of the award where it is recorded that the letters
were sent in the year 1995 by the respondent employer to the petitioner and
to the portion of the cross examination (page 62 of the paper book) where
the witness of the employer has admitted that the letters were returned
back, to contend that the Labour Court has wrongfully acted on the basis of
the said letters which were admittedly not received by the petitioner.
However, in view of the aforesaid, the said factor is found to be irrelevant.
9. The Labour Court has otherwise held that it was the petitioner who
had left the employment of his own will and accord and that his services
were not terminated. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
judgment in DTC Vs. Arun Kumar 2010 (116) DRJ 214 to contend that
abandonment is also a misconduct warranting enquiry and no enquiry
having been directed, the termination in the present case is illegal on that
ground alone.
10. Though the aforesaid proposition of law cannot be disputed with but
the long gap of seven years in raising the dispute is determinative in the
present case and in view thereof the finding of fact of the Labour Court of
abandonment of employment by the petitioner cannot be interfered with.
11. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
CM No.6245/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 04, 2011
'gsr'
