Delhi High Court
Mayur Auto Agency vs Ramesh Singh Manral on 19 September, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.09.2012
LPA 850/2011
MAYUR AUTO AGENCY ..... Appellant
versus
RAMESH SINGH MANRAL ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Ms Purbali Bora.
For the Respondent : Mr Manish Kumar with Mr Rakesh Gautam.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against
the judgment dated 26.07.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court
in WP(C) No.2866/2008.
2. The appellant herein (Mayur Auto Agency) was also the petitioner
before the learned Single Judge. In the said writ petition the appellant had
challenged the award dated 09.10.2006 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator
whereby the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent workman with
full back wages and continuity of service. The reference that was made to the
Industrial Adjudicator was as under:-
"Whether the services of Sh. Ramesh Singh Manral S/o Sh.
Bhupal Singh Manral C/o Rashtriya General Kamgar Mazdoor
Union, H.No.379, D-Block, Tisra Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-94,
have been terminated illegally and, or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief
alongwith consequential benefit in terms of existing
laws/Government notification and to what other relief is he/are
they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
3. The only question which was examined before the learned Single
Judge was whether the respondent workman had completed 240 days of
employment prior to the termination of his services. It is an admitted
position that the respondent workman was appointed by the petitioner some
time in 1997. It is also an admitted position that the services of the
respondent workman were terminated in 2002. Therefore on these
admissions alone it is apparent that the respondent workman had completed
more than 240 days' employment prior to the termination of his services.
However, it was contended by the appellant that the respondent had left the
employment of the appellant on his own and that all accounts had been
finally settled on 10.02.1999. It is also the case of the appellant that in June
2002 the respondent workman re-joined the employment of the appellant and
it is only thereafter that his services were terminated. Therefore, according to
the learned counsel for the appellant, there was a break in service and the
respondent workman had not completed 240 days of continuous employment
prior to the termination of his services.
4. However, we find from the impugned judgment that the learned Single
Judge had addressed this issue and had come to the conclusion that the onus
of proving as to whether the respondent workman had left the employment
of the appellant and had settled accounts on 10.02.1999 and had re-joined in
2002 was on the appellant. That onus had not been discharged. We had asked
the learned counsel for the appellant to tell us as to whether she had any
shred of evidence to establish the fact that the respondent workman had left
the employment of the appellant and had settled accounts on 10.02.1999. She
candidly and fairly stated that there was no such evidence available with her.
5. However, she submitted that there is some evidence to show that the
respondent had been employed elsewhere but that evidence, even according
to her, pertains to the year subsequent to the termination in 2002. Thus, even
if that is taken into account it would be of no help to the appellant. We may
point out that the learned Single Judge had rightly refused to look into this
aspect of the matter as the same had not even been raised before the
Industrial Adjudicator.
6. The learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned judgment has
modified the relief granted by the Industrial Adjudicator by directing as
under:-
"In the circumstances, it is deemed expedient to award
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. As
aforesaid, a sum of Rs.87,500/- has already been deposited by
the petitioner employer in this Court and which as on 11th May,
2011 had a maturity value of Rs.93,328/-. It may be noticed that
though the petitioner employer was directed on 16th January,
2009 to deposit the said amount within four weeks but the said
amount was not deposited for a year. The litigation expenses of
Rs.7,500/- were also not deposited by the petitioner employer.
Considering all the said factors, I deem appropriate that besides
permitting the respondent workman to withdraw the amount
lying in this Court, the petitioner employer pays a further sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement and
back wages and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation
expenses i.e. total sum of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent
workman within four weeks of today. It is ordered accordingly."
7. As pointed out by us above, we see no reason to take a view different
from that of the learned Single Judge on account of the fact that there is no
evidence to show that the respondent had left the services of the appellant in
the year 1999 and that he had re-joined in 2002. The admitted facts are that
the respondent was appointed in 1997 and his services were terminated in
2002 and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had not completed 240 days of
continuous employment prior to the termination of his services in 2002.
8. The judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be
faulted. The appeal is dismissed. The amount of Rs.87,500/- and Rs.60,000/-
which had been deposited as per the directions of the court shall be released
to the respondent within a week along with any interest accrued thereon.
There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
mk
