Delhi High Court
Khemchand vs M/S. Parveen Steels on 21 December, 2017
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 21st December, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2837/2015
KHEMCHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonal Singh, Advocate
versus
M/S. PARVEEN STEELS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Pandey & Mr. Sunil Kumar,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the
impugned Award dated 15.7.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court in LCA No.31/2011 titled Khem Chand v. M/s Parveen
Steels.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Award dated
15.7.2014, are that the petitioner joined the Management as Munim in
the year 1996 at last drawn monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- and at the
time of joining, he was asked by the Management to deposit
Rs.1,50,000/-, out of the amount he got after retirement from BSF as
security in lieu of which he was assured to be given job along with a
dividend of 20% which he did. During his services, the Management
deducted Rs.5,000/- from his salary with assurance that total deposit
amount will be released to him but in December 2008 and when he
demanded for his deposit money, his services were terminated on
15.1.2010. The Management did not pay his deposited amount despite
his repeated visits till 15.10.2010 and he was also extended threats.
The Management contested the claim by filing written-statement
alleging therein that the Petitioner was never employed with them. It
was submitted that in the year 1996, he advanced Rs.1,50,000/- to the
Management as loan at interest @ 1% per month and in June 2011, all
his dues were settled and the loan amount was paid to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour
Court erred in holding that there existed no relationship of employer
and employee between the petitioner and the Management; that there
was no prior adjudication upon the amount claimed; that the present
claim not only includes the non-paid salary and other dues, which
could not be proved by the Petitioner, but also the loan amount.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the reply dated
18.12.2008, wherein, it is urged that the respondent has admitted that
the benefit as well as right accrued in favour of the petitioner to file a
petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon
the impugned Award and has submitted that the claim of the
petitioner under Section 33(c)(2) was not maintainable as there was
neither any relationship of employer and employee nor was anything
due or acknowledged to be due by the respondent.
I have gone through the demand notice (Ex.WW-1/3) dated
1.12.2008 sent on behalf of the Workman, wherein it is stated that -
"I, therefore, on behalf of my aforesaid client call upon you, the
addressee that my client has withdrawn thereby dissolved the
partnership at will with immediate effect and further call upon you the
addressee to return the capital amount of Rs.1,52,120/- and in as
much as the amount of 20% of the profit of the aforesaid firm/HUF
for the period from 1996 to December, 2008 within statutory period
provided by law from the receipt of this legal notice (civil and
criminal-both) action against you and other HUF members of the
aforesaid firm to claim his rights, interests and amount accrued to my
client upto December, 2008. Copy of this legal notice is kept in my
office for further necessary action. Please take a note of it."
4. The demand notice, which is a basic document for the purpose
of initiating the proceedings against a person or establishment
narrates entirely a different story whereby the petitioner has called
upon respondent to return the capital amount of Rs.1,52,120/-. The
notice stated entirely a different version than what is stated in the
Statement of Claim under Section 33(c)(2) filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has harped upon the reply
(Ex.WW-1/1) dated 18.12.2008 of the Respondent Management, but
there is nothing on record which may, in any manner, prove that the
Management has acknowledged any benefit or right, on the basis
whereof it can be said that any benefit or right accrued in favour of
the petitioner to file a petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
5. I do not find anything on the record, whereby it can be
conclusively held in any manner that there was any relationship of
employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent. It
is also an admitted position that there was no prior adjudication
regarding the amount claimed by the petitioner against the
Management. The notice (Ex.WW-1/1) itself contradicts what is
stated in the statement of claim as well as arguments addressed by
learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-payment of salary or
other dues. If any amount was paid by the petitioner, as demanded in
the notice (Ex.WW-1/3), the remedy was not under Section 33(c)(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner ought to have
availed other remedies available under the civil law of the land for
this purpose, at that time.
I am not able to find any infirmity or flaw in the impugned
Award of the Labour Court dated 15.7.2014. The petition is
dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
DECEMBER 21, 2017
tp
