Delhi High Court
M/S Poddar Polymers vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 15 December, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 15th December, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 7729/2013
M/S PODDAR POLYMERS ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tiwari,
Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. K. Vishwanath, Advocate
for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition; the petitioner Establishment seeks setting
aside of the impugned award dated 19.01.2013, whereby the learned
Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay a lump sum amount of
Rs.25,000/- in favour of the respondent/workman towards full and final
settlement.
2. Mr.Rajendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 was working as a Karigar
with the petitioner since March, 1993, and he was drawing a salary of
Rs.4,300/- per month at the time of his illegal termination on 17.12.2010.
Vide communication dated 11.07.2008, the respondent No.2 requested the
petitioner that he had an urgent nature of work at his native place and could
not work with the petitioner, therefore, requested to give him full and final
payment. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 received a sum of Rs.33,000/-
on 13.07.2008, as full and final settlement which had been exhibited as Ex.
WW1/M2X and bears signature of the respondent/workman at point 'A'.
3. Thereafter, the respondent/workman again joined the petitioner/
Establishment on 12.11.2008 and again on 11.12.2010 requested the
petitioner that he had to go for some urgent work at home and sought one
month leave and accordingly, as per Ex. WW1/M5X received a sum of
Rs.2,000/- on 17.01.2011, which bears signature of the respondent at point
'A'.
4. However, the respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute, the
conciliation failed and vide order dated 23.09.2011, the appropriate
Government sent the following reference:-
"Whether services of Shri Ram Nath s/o Shri Ram Kripal have
been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the
management; and if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
5. The claim of the respondent/workman before the Labour Court was
that he was working as a Karigar since March, 1993 and was drawing a
monthly salary of Rs.4,300/-. When he reported for duty on 17.12.2010, the
petitioner/Establishment refused to take him on duty and his services were
illegally terminated on 17.12.2010. He requested to pay the minimum
wages as applicable to a skilled worker and to this effect a complaint was
lodged with the Labour Inspector to visit the premises and inspect the
record. Thereafter, through Union, he served the notice dated 07.03.2011
asking the petitioner/Establishment to reinstate him in service with back
wages.
6. It is further case of the workman that he had not paid the salary for
the month of December, 2010, he is still unemployed as could not find any
alternative gainful employment.
7. The petitioner/Establishment filed the written statement, whereby
stated that respondent's wages for 11 working days is pending with the
petitioner/Establishment and the respondent/workman is entitled to receive
the same. Further stated, if the workman wishes to work, then he can do so
at the post of Helper on minimum wages after returning a sum of Rs.2,000/-
to the petitioner without any further reservation and condition on him.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner/Establishment had taken the
respondent's signature on a blank paper. The respondent No.2 did not
receive any amount as settlement, his services were illegally terminated and
the compensation awarded by the Labour Court may be enhanced.
9. The fact remains that the learned Labour Court in the award recorded
that neither the workman was aware as to on which date his services were
terminated nor proved the fact that the same were terminated on 17.12.2010.
He also failed to prove that signature on his application Ex.WW1/M4X was
obtained by the petitioner/Establishment when the said paper was blank.
Accordingly, the contention of the respondent/workman was rejected by the
Labour Court observing that onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the
respondent/workman, to which he failed. Hence, the said issue was decided
in favour of the petitioner/Establishment and against the respondent.
10. Moreover, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/workman
to the instant petition, it is stated that the award dated 19.01.2013 is a
reasoned, well-balanced and judicious order, which cannot be challenged on
any ground. Thus, plea of the respondent/workman for enhancement has no
bearing.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the present
petition, pursuant to order dated 10.09.2014, Mr.Anil Poddar, Proprietor of
the petitioner/Establishment appeared and submitted before this Court that
the respondent/workman had misused the Act, therefore, challenged the
award by way of the present petition. However, while showing his
generosity submitted that he had no objection if the respondent/workman
agreed to join the service with the petitioner and accordingly invited him but
the respondent/workman shown his inability to work in the
petitioner/establishment.
12. Since the respondent/workman failed to establish any of the issue
before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has opined in favour of the
petitioner/Establishment, despite, the Labour Court awarded lump sum
amount of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the respondent/workman towards full
and final settlement.
13. In view of the above discussion and facts of the case, especially when
the Tribunal recorded against the workman, I am of the considered view that
the respondent/workman is not entitled for any amount. Accordingly, award
dated 19.01.2013 is hereby set aside.
14. Pursuant to order dated 09.12.2013, the petitioner has deposited the
awarded amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith Rs.15,000/- towards litigation
expenses. Therefore, the Registry of this Court is directed to release a sum
of Rs.25,000/- including the interest, if any, accrued thereon in favour of the
petitioner/Establishment on taking necessary steps by it.
15. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 15, 2014
sb
