M/S Hitone Electronics vs Sonia And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4136 Del

$~10
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                 Judgment delivered on: 3rd September, 2014

+      W.P.(C) 66/2014

M/S HITONE ELECTRONICS                   ..... Petitioner
                  Represented by: Mr. Kanwar, S.N., Adv.

                      versus
SONIA AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                               Represented by:  Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Adv. for
                               R1(A) to R1(C).
                               Mr. Subodh Kumar and Ms. Santwana, Advs. for
                               R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner / Establishment has assailed the award dated 03.09.2013, passed by the Labour Court, Delhi, whereby petitioner was directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the respondents / workmen in lieu of reinstatement in service and back wages within 30 days from the date of award, failing which, the workmen shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.

2. Mr. Kanwar, S.N., Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner / Management produced the record maintained by the workers before the Labour Court wherein names of the respondents / workmen were not indicated.

3. Mr. Kanwar, further submits that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the report of Sh. Sanjeev Gosain, Labour Inspector which was prepared in the absence of the petitioner. Moreover, there was no reason or cause for giving the report in favour of the respondents. In his cross-examination Sh. Sanjeev Gosain deposed that he did not see the respondents / workmen working with the petitioner Establishment. Moreover, no proof has been produced before the Trial Court by the respondents. Despite, the Labour Court has awarded the compensation as mentioned above.

4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there were few workers on the roll who were working and a record thereto was produced before the Labour Court. However, the same has been ignored by the said Court.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / workmen submits that in a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court need not go into the evidence led by the parties before the Trial Court, however has to see whether any perversity or illegality is committed by the Labour Court.

6. All three respondents / workmen filed their affidavits whereby stated that they were working with the petitioner. Moreover, when the Labour Inspector visited the Petitioner Establishment, all the three respondents / workmen were found there and even at that point of time they stated that they were working with the petitioner.

7. The respondents / workmen failed to produce any material by proving that their names were in the register of the workmen maintained by petitioner, however, when the respondents / workmen were on the mercy of

the establishment, it was not within their domain to maintain such register and produce the same before the Labour Court.

8. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties.

9. It is undisputed fact that if any workman completes 240 days in a calendar year, he / she may claim the rights available to him/her. Accordingly, some of the establishments do not keep any record, which can be available to the workman. In such a situation it is easy to deny that no- one was working with the Establishment.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three respondents / workmen are present in the court. The nature of job which they used to do in the Establishment has been narrated by them and this Court verified from the petitioner's counsel and found the same job is being carried out by the Petitioner Establishment.

11. Therefore, it cannot be disbelieved that the respondents were not working with the Establishment. They may be on daily wages. This fact has been verified by the Labour Inspector in his report that Sh. Sunny Jain, Proprietor of the Establishment appeared in the Labour Office and stated that the respondents / workmen were not regular workmen in their Establishment. They were called on daily wages as per the needs and paid salary accordingly on the same day. Therefore, Labour Court has granted only Rs.50,000/- each to the respondents / workmen in lieu of the reinstatement and back wages. However, has not directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents / workmen in service with back wages.

12. The respondents / workmen belong to the lower strata of the society. When they were removed from the service, they had no option, but to

approach some Union Leader, who take up their issues and accordingly, filed claims before the Labour Court.

13. In view of the facts recorded above, I find no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Ld. Labour Court.

14. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

CM. No. 104/2014 With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has become infructuous and disposed of as such.

SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2014 jg