Rajesh Loomba vs Amarjeet & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5273 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                   Date of decision: 10th August, 2016
+       W.P.(C) 2310/2002

        RAJESH LOOMBA                            ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Satender Verma, Adv.

                        versus

        AMARJEET & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Monica Kapoor, Adv. for R-1.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

                                 JUDGMENT

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge in this writ petition is, to the notice dated November

27, 2001 issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Implementation Branch

calling upon the petitioner to appear before him and to explain as to why

the Award of the Labour Court dated February 1, 2000 be not

implemented. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the Award

dated February 1, 2000, wherein the Industrial Adjudicator has directed

reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and 60%

back wages.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,08,023/- to the respondent No.1 in

the month of June, 2001. The said amount is for implementing the Award

dated February 1, 2000. It is noted that as the petitioner had not

reinstated the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 has sought the

recovery of Rs.46,061/- as wages for the period beyond February 1, 2000.

It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the

respondent No.1 has taken a different job elsewhere in the year 2004. It

is also conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter was

referred to Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, wherein

the petitioner had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the

respondent No.1, which was not acceptable to the respondent No.1. He

was agreeable to settle the matter for Rs.1 lakh.

3. During the submissions, an issue arose whether the proprietorship

concern namely Eco Tours has been closed down. This aspect has been

contested by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 by relying upon

certain yearly calendars got printed by the petitioner in the name of Eco

Rent A Car whose address is the same as that of Eco Tours i.e A-264,

Defence Colony, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the aspect of closure has attained finality in an Award dated

February 26, 2003 rendered by the Industrial Adjudicator in a different

industrial dispute, which is a subject-matter of a different writ petition in

this Court. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to page 118 of the

paper-book, wherein the issue "Whether the Management has closed the

establishment with effect from June 3, 2000 in accordance with law, if so

its effect", has been decided in favour of M/s Eco Tours. If that be so, the

respondent No.1 could not have been taken on duty pursuant to Award

dated February 1, 2000. The plea of the learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 is that, as the respondent No.1 got employment only in

2004, till that time the respondent No.1 is entitled to wages.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there is no

dispute that in terms of the Award dated February 26, 2003, it has been

concluded by the Industrial Adjudicator that the Eco Tours has been

closed. The plea that the Eco Tours was functioning thereafter, by

relying upon the calendars issued, may not be correct as Eco Rent A Car

of which the calendars were published was represented as a division of

ET TRAV-AIDES Pvt. Ltd. a separate entity. That apart, the conclusion

of the Industrial Adjudicator in the Award dated February 26, 2003 still

holds the field till such time, it is over ruled. It must be held that the Eco

Tours having been closed, of which the respondent No.1 was an

employee, he could not have been reinstated. That apart, it is also

conceded that in 2004, the respondent No.1 got a new employment.

5. Having noted the fact that the petitioner had offered an amount of

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.1, during the mediation proceedings,

which has not been accepted by the respondent No.1, appears to be

unreasonable. The respondent No.1, on the strength of the Award dated

February 1, 2000, which directed his reinstatement and the fact that the

Eco Tours has been closed, is eligible for compensation for not being

reinstated. There is no dispute, he already got 60% of back wages

granted by the Industrial Adjudicator. Since, petitioner had offered

Rs.50,000/- when the matter was pending before the Delhi High Court

Mediation & Conciliation Centre, which I note from the order sheets was

in the year 2015, this Court is of the view, the parties are in litigation

since 1990 when the respondent No.1 said to have been terminated. In

the fitness of things, to put quitess to the matter, the petitioner is directed

to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- (Rs. Fifty Five Thousand) to the

respondent No.1 as compensation. This would result in setting aside the

Notice dated November 27, 2001 issued by the respondent No.3. Ordered

accordingly.

6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.

AUGUST 10, 2016                                 V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ak