Delhi High Court
Gurdayal vs Central Cottage Industries ... on 15 December, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~R-200
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 15, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 52/2005
GURDAYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate
versus
CENTRAL COTTAGE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Sarkar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Impugned Award of 8th September, 2003 dismisses claim petition
of petitioner while holding that no relationship of employer-employee
exists between the parties.
It is a matter of record that petitioner was permanent employee of
respondent-Central Cottage Industries Corporation (hereinafter referred to
as CCIC) since the year 1971 and the workers of CCIC were transferred
to M/s. Samovar by way of Settlement of 9th February, 1981 and as per
Clause 2 thereof, if any vacancy occurred in CCIC, then preference was
to be given to the workers of CCIC. The workmen-Union of respondent-
CCIC had sought interpretation of the Settlement of 9 th February, 1981
W.P.(C) 52/2005 Page 1
and vide Award of 10th October, 1996 it was clarified as under: -
"I, therefore, hold as a result of above discussion that
contention of the workmen is correct that according to Clause 2
of above mentioned settlement dt. 9/2/81 ex-employees of
Bankura Cafe who were in the employment of the said Bankura
Cafe on 8/2/81 have a right to claim that in any vacancy which
occurred in Central Cottage Industries Corporation after the
said settlement any of them can be absorbed, then preference
should be given to them in employment. Clause 2 of the said
settlement cannot be interpreted in any other way and the
contention of the management that these person could be
engaged only against the posts of Cooks, Assistant Cooks,
Pantrymen, Butlers, Waiters, and Masalchis, is wrong.
Reference is answered accordingly."
Petitioner's Reference of his non-absorption by respondent-CCIC
in terms of Clause 2 of the aforesaid Settlement of 9 th February, 1981
stands answered vide impugned Award. The finding returned in the
impugned Award is as under: -
"Once the services of the workman were transferred
from C.C.I.C. to Samovar after settlement of account the
relationship of employee and employer came to an end w.e.f.
9.2.81. Further, after more than 14 years serving with M/s.
Samovar the workman received his full and final dues from M/s.
Samovar, therefore, there was no occasion of reviving the
relationship of the employee and employer the workman and
M/s. C.C.I.C. However, as per the assurance in clause 2 the
Management of C.C.I.C. was to consider the workman for
employment if the vacancies were available after the expiry of
the contract. This was not the service condition for the
workman between the employer and employee but appears to be
a gesture of goodwill on humanitarian ground. This issue is
W.P.(C) 52/2005 Page 2
accordingly answered against the workman and in favour of the
management"
At the hearing, to assail the afore-noted findings, learned counsel
for petitioner contended that despite petitioner's request prior and
subsequent to the closure of Bankura Cafe, he had not been absorbed by
respondent-CCIC although many of the similarly placed employees, like
petitioner, have been absorbed by respondent. It was submitted that in the
face of the first Award of 10th October, 1996, the finding returned in the
impugned Award of there being no relationship of employer-employee
between the parties, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside and
a direction ought to be issued to respondent to absorb petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned Award
and submitted that the Managing Director of respondent had clearly
stated in his evidence that there is no vacancy against which any of the
employees of M/s. Samovar could be absorbed and that petitioner has not
led any evidence as to why he had not applied for any absorption and so,
this petition deserves dismissal.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned Award, the earlier
Award of 10th October, 1996, the evidence on record, I find that the
categoric stand of respondent in the evidence was that they did not have
any vacancy after the settlement and so, petitioner could not be absorbed.
In the cross-examination of respondent's witness, it has been vaguely
brought out that some of the employees were absorbed. But, it has not
been brought out when they were absorbed. In the face of such vague
evidence, it cannot be said that the mandate of Award of 10 th October,
1996 has not been complied with. Even if the finding returned on Issue
W.P.(C) 52/2005 Page 3
No.3 in the impugned Award is set aside, still no direction can be issued
to absorb petitioner as it has not been brought out clearly that any
vacancy existed for absorption of petitioner.
During the course of hearing, it was put to learned counsel for
petitioner as to what is the age of petitioner today and it was informed
that petitioner is aged about 57-58 years.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that
no direction for absorption of petitioner can be issued nor it can be said
that petitioner is entitled to any monetary benefits. This petition is
accordingly dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 15, 2015
s
W.P.(C) 52/2005 Page 4
