M/S. Bhawani Dass Rameshwar Dutt vs Bali Karan
2014 Latest Caselaw 709 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                           Decided on February 05, 2014
+                            W.P.(C) 4354/2013
M/S. BHAWANI DASS RAMESHWAR DUTT                         ..... Petitioner

                    Represented by:    Mr.Sunil Verma, Advocate.

                    versus

BALI KARAN                                              ..... Respondent

                    Represented by:    None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in this writ petition is by petitioner M/s Bhawani Dass Rameshwar Dutt to the Award dated August 07, 2012 passed by the Labour Court-XVI, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Labour Court has awarded a lumpusum compensation of `2,50,000/- to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages etc.

2. It was the case of the respondent before the Labour Court that he was employed with the petitioner herein in the year 1967 as a general worker. His last drawn salary was `4,000/- per month. On demand of legal benefits by him the petitioner stopped the earned wages and also started harassing him. On repeated demands of workman for earned wages and legal benefits, the petitioner got his signatures on certain blank papers and forcibly obtained his resignation illegally and arbitrarily terminated his services on February 12, 2008 without paying

earned wages for the period November 01, 2007 to February 12, 2008 in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. It was the case of the petitioner that the firm was constituted in the year 1984 and the respondent was engaged intermittently for carrying assignments of stock taking and was being paid wages on daily basis. It was also the case of the petitioner that respondent had made some wrong entries in stock register and when he was asked regarding the same, he misbehaved and abused the daughter of the proprietor of the petitioner concern. It was their case that the respondent had left the petitioner on his own accord as he did not turn up after November 01, 2007. They contested the claim of the respondent for payment of wages for the period November 01, 2007 to February 12, 2008.

4. Two issues were framed by the Labour Court which included: whether the respondent had completed 240 days in a year and whether the respondent is entitled to the claim on the basis of the evidence adduced before it only by the respondent.

5. It is noted that the respondent had only led the evidence and not the petitioner.

6. On issue No.1, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the respondent joined the petitioner establishment in the year 1967. It has also come to a conclusion that the respondent had worked with the petitioner for 240 days continuously immediately preceding the date of

termination.

7. Based on the aforesaid findings, the compensation of `2,50,000/- was granted by the Labour Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner establishment was constituted in the year 1984. The contention of the respondent that he joined the petitioner establishment in the year 1967 is incorrect. He would further state that the petitioner's right to cross examination was closed on December 05, 2011, because of which the petitioner could not lead its evidence.

9. I have seen the cross examination of the respondent by the representative of the petitioner establishment before the Labour Court. Neither any suggestion was put to the respondent workman on his date of joining the petitioner establishment nor any question was asked regarding respondent's knowledge of petitioner establishment having been constituted in the year 1984.

10. In the facts, the Labour Court was right in holding as under:

"The workman was cross examined at length, however, during his lengthy cross examination the fact that the workman joined the management in the year 1967 has not been controverted at all."

11. Insofar as the aspect of the petitioner's right to lead evidence is concerned, the petitioner has only placed as Annexure P-6 copies of order dated August 05, 2010, April 04, 2011, May 19, 2011 and December 05, 2011. On May 19, 2011 an adjournment was sought by the

petitioner establishment on the ground that management witness is out of station. The Labour Court adjourned the matter to July 29, 2011. It is not known as to what transpired on July 29, 2011. It is also not known as to whether any date was fixed for management evidence between July 29, 2011 to December 05, 2012. It is clear that opportunity was given by the Labour Court to the petitioner to lead its evidence. The conclusion which can be arrived at is that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to lead the evidence.

12. No fault can be found in the order of the Labour Court on the two submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Further, I find that the Labour Court had awarded a lumpsum compensation of `2,50,000/-. The reasoning is evident in para No.10 of the award, which I reproduced hereunder:

"The Workman claims that he has worked with Management for 40 years. The affidavit filed by the Workman Ex.WW1/A reveals that the Workman has mentioned his age as 55 years. The affidavit has been filed in the year 2009. Now the question arises whether the Court should indulge in any discussion in respect of the age of the Workman or the date of retirement of the Workman. On this score in case British Paints (India) Ltd. vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 732, Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter-alia, held to the effect that if no age of retirement is fixed, the Workman continue so long as he is physically or mentally fit."

13. In the facts of this case, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court. The writ petition is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

14. The respondent is at liberty to seek the release of the awarded

amount deposited in this Court, with interest accrued by approaching the Registrar General of this Court.

C.M No.10075/2013 In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the present application is dismissed and the interim order dated July 12, 2013 stands vacated.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2014/km