Delhi High Court
Hitesh Kumar Verma vs Nav Bahar on 14 October, 2011
Author: S. Muralidhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W. P. (C) 675/2011 & CM 1432/2011
Reserved on: September 27, 2011
Decision on: October 14, 2011
HITESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Sehgal, Advocate.
versus
NAV BAHAR ..... Respondent
Through: None
W. P. (C) 929/2011 & CM 1955/2011
HITESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Sehgal, Advocate.
versus
CHANDER PAL ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the order? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? No
JUDGMENT
14.10.2011
1. These two writ petitions involve more or less similar set of facts and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W. P. (C) No. 675 of 2011 by Hitesh Kumar, proprietor of M/s Amit Garments
challenges an Award dated 22nd May 2010 passed by the Labour Court allowing the
claim of the Respondent workman Shri Nav Bahar in DID No. 129 of 2006 and
directing the Petitioner management to compensate the workman in the sum of Rs.
75,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement.
3. W. P. (C) 929 of 2011 by the same Petitioner challenges the Award dated 22nd May
2010 of the Labour Court allowing the claim of the Respondent workman Shri Chander
Pal in DID No. 130 of 2006 and directing the Petitioner to compensate him in the sum
of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
4. The case of both the Respondent workmen was that they were employed as tailors
with the Petitioner management. Shri Nav Bahar claimed that he was employed since
1994 whereas Shri Chander Pal claimed that he was employed since 1986.
5. Both workers claimed that they were not paid salaries for the period December 2004
to 13th January 2005. When they reported for duty on 14th January 2005 and demanded
the arrears of salary, they were threatened and beaten by some anti-social elements at
the behest of the management. The workmen claimed that their services were illegally
terminated by the management in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (`ID Act').
6. The resultant industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in
DID Nos. 129 and 130 of 2006, respectively.
7. Both the workmen filed their respective affidavits by way of evidence and examined
themselves as WW-1. The management filed the evidence by way of affidavits of three
witnesses. Two of them were examined in the Court.
8. The issue whether there existed any relationship of employer and employee between
the parties was answered in favour of the workmen. As regards the issue whether their
services were terminated illegally, the Labour Court relied on a document being a slip
issued by Swami Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara showing that the workmen had taken
treatment on 14th January 2005 suggesting that some incident had occurred on that date.
On that basis the Labour Court concluded that the workmen's services were terminated
illegally by the management. However, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Labour
Court directed compensation in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to each of the
workmen.
9. In both these writ petitions, despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the
Respondent workmen.
10. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 3rd February 2011, the
Petitioner has deposited 50% of the awarded amount in each of the petitions.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the documents produced by the
workmen showed that they were paid on per piece basis and not on the basis of a
monthly salary. The documents produced by the workmen have been annexed as
Annexure-F collectively to the writ petitions. Indeed they bear out the above contention
of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. There is no document produced to substantiate
the contention of the workmen that they were being paid salary by the Petitioner
management. The Labour Court has ignored the above evidence and has erroneously
concluded that since the management had the right to reject the work of the
Respondents and refuse to give them work there was a relationship of employer and
employee. As held by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative
Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 3 SCC 513, the burden of
showing the existence of an employer employee relationship was on the workmen. Far
from proving the existence of such a relationship, the workmen in their cross-
examination admitted that they were never issued any appointment letters and also that
they never made any complaint to any authority regarding non-issuance of such letter.
They also admitted to have never demanded any salary slip or for that matter, salary for
the period December 2004 to 13th January 2005.
12. The conclusion of the Labour Court in the impugned Awards that the services of the
workmen were illegally terminated is based on no evidence at all. The slip dated 14th
January 2005 issued by the Hospital can hardly be taken to be proof of illegal
termination of the workmen's services. Again, this finding of the Labour Court is
totally perverse and based on no evidence whatsoever. The consequent direction of the
Labour Court that the Petitioner should pay to each of the Respondent workmen Rs.
75,000/- as compensation is unsustainable in law.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the
impugned Awards dated 22nd May 2010 passed by the Labour Court in DID Nos. 129
and 130 of 2006. The amounts constituting fifty per cent of the awarded amount
deposited in each petition by the Petitioner in this Court together with interest, if any,
accrued thereon will be returned to the Petitioner by the Registry on proper
identification within two weeks from today.
14. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no
order as to costs. All pending applications are disposed of.
OCTOBER 14, 2011 S. MURALIDHAR, J.
akg
