Delhi High Court
M/S Englife Product (India) vs Lieutenanat Governor Of Delhi & ... on 1 September, 2017
$~24
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7709/2017
Date of Decision: 1st September, 2017
M/S ENGLIFE PRODUCT (INDIA) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Satender Singh, Advocate
versus
LIEUTENANAT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned
award dated 17.8.2015 in LIR No.249/2014 of the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts Complex and also the
consequential impugned order dated 10.03.2016 in M No.-11289/16 of
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court XIX.
2. Vide the award dated 17.8.2015 referred to herein above, the
reference made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of
NCT of Delhi vide reference No.F.24(23)/Lab./NE/2014/660 dated
09.04.2014 to the effect:
"Whether services of Sh. Gyan Singh S/o Sh.
Kishan Lal have been terminated illegally
and/or unjustifiably by the management and
if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
was answered to the effect that the claim of the claimant, i.e., Gyan
Singh, arrayed as respondent No.1, (which apparently ought to be read
as respondent No.2, in as much as there are three respondents arrayed
on the record), was allowed, and the said LIR was allowed and he was
held entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages, observing to the effect that the claimant had put forth a
grievance that he having been employed with the management M/s
Englife Products (India), i.e., the present petitioner in the month of
February, 1982 as a Turner, put forth certain demands but the
management got annoyed and terminated his services withholding his
earned wages for the month of February, 2013, in relation to which
also he submitted a complaint to the Labour Department on 2.9.2013
but the management did not come up with the requisite record before
the competent authority on 8.10.2013 and 11.10.2013, and in
response to the demand notice, the management asked the claimant to
report for duty and on 15.10.2013, when the claimant reached the
management establishment, the claimant was not allowed to report for
duty. Ultimately, the claimant submitted a complaint dated
30.10.2013 before the Conciliation Officer, raising an industrial
dispute and the Conciliation Officer had allowed him to report for
duty. Thereafter proceedings in the LIR No.249/2014 were initiated by
the claimant and the Management, i.e., the present petitioner chose
not to put in appearance despite service of notice in the said case and
vide order dated 14.10.2014, the management, i.e., the present
petitioner had been proceeded against ex parte, whereupon the
petitioner led evidence himself as WW1.
3. Vide the said impugned award, it was concluded that from the
unchallenged testimony of the claimant, his claim, (i.e., the respondent
to the present writ) his claim that he got employed with the
management as 'Turner' in the month of February, 1982 and that the
management had terminated his services w.e.f. 1.4.2013 when he put
forth his demand for the facilities to be provided to its employees
stood established and that the record also established that the claimant
had worked for a continuous period of 240 days in the year preceding
the date of his termination and thus the requisite compliance of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been made
and that the services of the claimant workman had thus been illegally
terminated.
4. Vide the consequential impugned order dated 10.3.2016 in M
No.11289/16 which is in relation to an application filed by the
Management seeking the setting aside of the ex parte order dated
14.1.2014 and the consequential award passed on 17.8.2015 in LIR
No.249/14, the said applications were declined. It was held vide the
impugned order dated 10.3.20165 and observed to the effect that the
services of the notice on Mr.Vaibhav, son of the owner of the
management, in LIR No.249/14 had not been disputed and the Court
found that the management was duly served with the process issued
for the dated 14.10.2014.
5. It has also been categorically established vide the impugned
order dated 10.3.2016 to the effect that the management could have
put in appearance during the period 22.11.2014 to 17.8.2015 also, i.e.,
the entire period when the industrial dispute remained pending but the
management did not participate in any of the proceedings.
6. The factum that the son of the petitioner herein has received the
process is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner submitting that the
process was undoubtedly delivered on 5.9.2014 to Mr.Vaibhav, the
son of the owner of the petitioner M/s Englife Products (India) Ltd.
7. It has however been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
there was the demise of the elder brother of the owner of the petitioner
and thus the petitioner and his family were under personal constraints
and thus unable to put in appearance before the Labour Court.
8. Qua this aspect, the same per se is insufficient for the
appearance of the petitioner before the Labour Court for the process
had been delivered for the date and also for the reason that as rightly
observed vide the impugned order dated 10.3.2016, the management
chose not to put in appearance during the entire period when the
industrial dispute remained pending which in fact ought to be w.e.f
24.5.2004 till 17.8.2015. This per se indicates that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.3.2016 in M No.11289/16.
9. Another submission made orally on behalf of the petitioner is to
the effect that the son of the petitioner, i.e., Vaibhav, to whom the
process was delivered on 5.9.2014 was aged 16/17 years and was not
aware of any summons of the Court and that itself would be sufficient
to hold that there was no proper service. In relation to the said
submission, the Court has given opportunity to the petitioner to place
on record, the details of the Date of Birth of the said Vaibhav, the son
of the owner of the management, qua which learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he cannot place on record the said details the
same being not available with the petitioner.
10. In reply to a specific court query, as to whether this aspect of
the son of the owner of the petitioner being aged 16/17 years was
initially urged before the Labour Court, in reply to a specific court
query it has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner now that
the said submission that Vaibhav is aged 16/17 years is nowhere
mentioned on the record in the present petition also. In these
circumstances, the said contention also cannot be accepted.
11. In view thereof, it having been already held that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.3.2016 in M No.11289/16
and taking also into account the observations in the impugned award
vide dated 17.8.2015 in LIR No.249/14 made on the basis of the
referred claim of the claimant/workman having been established, it is
held that there is no infirmity in the impugned award and the
consequential impugned order dated 17.8.2015 and 10.03.2016
respectively of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court -XIX,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
12. The petition W.P.(C) No.7709/2017 is dismissed accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2017/sv
