Airport Authority Of India vs Ram Gopal & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4538 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of decision: 31st July, 2012

+                             LPA 305/2012

      AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA              ..... Appellant
                 Through:  Mr. Rajan Sabharwal with Ms.
                           Seema Singh, Advs.
                                versus
    RAM GOPAL & ORS                      ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

1. Against the award dated 16th May, 2007 of the Labour Court

granting reinstatement with 25% back wages, the appellant Airport

Authority of India (AAI) has filed W.P.(C) No.8510/2007. In this writ

petition, notice has been issued to the respondent workmen and in the

meantime there is a stay of reinstatement. The respondent workmen, who

are three in number, filed applications under Section 17B of the ID Act,

1947 for payment of wages during the pendency of the said writ petition.

Vide impugned order dated 14th March, 2012 prayers made in the said

applications by the respondent workmen have been allowed by the

learned Single Judge directing the appellant to pay last drawn wages or

the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority from time to time,

whichever is higher, from the date of the impugned award till the disposal

of the writ petition, provided the respondent workmen file an undertaking

that they shall refund to the appellant any amount which may be found to

have been received by them in excess of their entitlement under Section

17B of the Act, in the event of appellant succeeding finally in the writ

petition. Challenging that order present Intra-Court appeal is preferred.

2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant, which was raised

before the learned Single Judge also, was that the respondent workmen

were gainfully employed in industrial establishments and in the affidavits

filed, two respondent workmen had given wrong addresses because of

which the appellant could not make any investigation to find out as to

whether they were working or not. In the case of another workman

namely Shri Rajindra Kumar Sharma, the contention was that he was

employed as a Security Guard at premises No.C-72, Sector-2, Noida. It is

the submission that the learned Single Judge ignored this argument of the

appellant. It is argued that had the respondent workmen given their

correct residential addresses, the appellant could have found out as to

whether they were also working.

3. When this appeal came up for hearing on 23rd July, 2012, direction

was given to the respondent workmen to file their individual affidavits

stating their present address as well as the addresses at which they were

living at the time of filing of application under Section 17B of the ID Act.

In respect of respondent workman Shri Rajindra Kumar Sharma, it was

directed that he should also state in his affidavit as to whether he had

been working as a Security Guard at C-72, Sector-2, Noida or any other

place.

4. All the three respondent workmen have filed affidavits. In so far as

Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharma is concerned, he has given his residential

address where he has been residing since the year 2000. He has further

stated that he joined the employment of M/s Balanced Clothing, owned

by Mr. Rohit Bal at C-72, Sector -2, Noida in June, 2005 and worked

there till November, 2011 when his services were retrenched and his last

drawn wages were Rs.7,600/- per month in M/s Balanced Clothing. He

has categorically stated that he has been unemployed after November,

2011. This shows that the affidavit which was filed by Mr. Rajindra

Kumar Sharma along with his application under Section 17B of the Act

stating that he was not employed from the date of award was false. Mr.

Rajindra Kumar Sharma made a wrong statement on Oath and as a result

thereof he could even get the order of payment of wages under Section

17B of the Act in his favour as passed by the learned Single Judge. Since

the application under Section 17B of the Act filed by him was supported

by false affidavit, we dismiss his application under Section 17B of the

Act and appeal to that extent is allowed. Further for making false

submissions in the said affidavit, we are of the view that prima facie case

of perjury under Section 340 of the Cr.PC (Section 195 & 196 Cr.PC) is

also made out. Registrar General is directed to make reference to the

concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for initiating proceedings against him.

5. In so far as respondent no.1 Shri Ram Gopal is concerned, in his

affidavit he has now given the present address where he is residing. He

has specifically mentioned that his old residential address is RZG-97,

Gali No.3, Palam Dabri Road, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi - 110 045 and

owner of the said house is Mr. Devender Singh who is his brother. He

resided in the said house from 1992 till December, 2010 and from

January, 2011 he is residing at Gram Post Keelpur, Tehsil Khair, Block

Tappao, Zila Aligarh, UP. He has further specifically stated on Oath that

since the date of passing of the impugned award dated 16th May, 2007 he

has not been able to procure any employment.

6. In these circumstances, the order passed under Section 17B of the

Act by the learned Single Judge qua Shri Ram Gopal is sustained.

However the said order shall remain in abeyance for a period of two

months to enable the appellant to find out as to whether Shri Ram Gopal

is presently employed or not. We are giving this time to the appellant as

the present address of Shri Ram Gopal where he is residing since January,

2011 is provided only now. In case the appellant finds or has proof that

Shri Ram Gopal is presently employed, the appellant may move an

application before the learned Single Judge for variation of order under

Section 17B of the Act; otherwise the said order shall become operative

after a period of two months and the arrears of wages under Section 17B

of the Act; shall be paid to Shri Ram Gopal from the date of award as

ordered.

7. The respondent no.3 workman Shri Ram Chander Paswan in his

affidavit has stated that his residential address was House No.48, Harijan

Colony, Baghdola, near Primary School, New Delhi- 110 045 which

premises belonged to his father-in-law, who was a tenant of the said

house and the owner is one Shri Gyan Chand Yadav. It is further stated

that he resided in the said house from 1990 till December, 2009 and from

January, 2010 he had shifted to House no.51, village Baghdola, Near

Radhey Krishan Mandir, New Delhi - 110 077 and is residing in this

house as a tenant. He has also stated that since the date of passing of the

award he has been unemployed. The case of the respondent no.3

workman Shri Ram Chander Paswan shall also be governed by the same

order which is passed in respect of respondent no.1 Shri Ram Gopal.

8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JULY 31, 2012 pp