Delhi High Court
Hari Om vs M/S. Balaji Mech-Tech Private ... on 19 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19.02.2018
+ W.P. (C) 1535/2018
HARI OM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Niraj Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
versus
M/S. BALAJI MECH-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED...Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 6301/2018
Exemptions granted subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 6302/2018
There is a delay of 213 days in re-filing the present writ
petition. The delay of 213 days in re-filing the writ petition is
condoned for justifiable reasons explained in the application.
The application is disposed of.
W.P. (C) 1535/2018
1. Challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is to the award dated 10.03.2017 passed
by the Pilot Court/Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVII,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi (in short 'Industrial Adjudicator')
in a case vide LIR No.6862/2016 (old ID 76/08) in which the
reference order dated 05.05.2008 issued by the Government of
NCT of Delhi was "Whether Sh. Hari Om S/o Sh. Mata Din is
absenting from duty unauthorizedly or his services have been
illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the Management;
and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?". The reference was
answered against the petitioner.
2. In his statement of claim, the petitioner claimed that he was
working with the respondent/Management as Peon/Godown
Keeper/Field Worker since 12.03.1990 at an interim salary of
Rs.2,800/- per month. He alleged that the respondent did not
issue him letter of appointment, attendance card, leave book,
pay slip and pay him the over-time allowance and minimum
wages. When the petitioner demanded the same, the
respondent started harassing him. The Management got
irritated by such demands of the petitioner and ultimately on
10.09.2006 after obtaining his signatures on the blank
vouchers the respondent/management terminated his services
without any reason. He was also not paid his arrears of salary
for the period from 01.06.2006 to 10.09.2006.
3. In its written statement, it is pleaded by the
respondent/Management that the petitioner had worked with
them in two spells; firstly, from 15.01.1995 to 03.02.2000
when he resigned of his own and collected his dues. He again
joined the duties with the respondent/Management with effect
from 06.04.2000 and worked with them till 17.07.2006 after
which he started absenting from duty despite several letters
and reminders from the Respondent/Management. It is denied
that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the
Respondent/Management on 10.09.2006. It is pleaded that the
respondent sent letters dated 27.07.2006 and 16.08.2006 to the
petitioner asking him to report for duty but he failed to do so.
It was pleaded that even if the workman wishes to join back he
may do so immediately.
4. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the written statement denying
the contents thereof and reaffirmed the averments made in his
statement of claim. He reiterated that his job was illegally
terminated by the respondent on 10.09.2006.
5. On 20.03.2009, the Industrial Adjudicator framed the
following issues:-
"1.Whether the workman proves that he was illegally
terminated on 10.09.2006?
2. Whether the management proves that the workman
remained unauthorizedly absent from 17.07.2006?
3. Terms of reference."
6. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as
WW1. On the other hand, the respondent/Management
examined its Director Shri Pramod Gupta as MW1.
7. After hearing the parties, the Industrial Adjudicator vide
impugned Award decided all issues in favour of the
Respondent/Management and against the petitioner.
8. In his cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted having
filed a complaint Ex.WW1/M2 with the Labour Department on
28.08.2006. In this complaint the petitioner did not mention
his date of termination and admittedly the petitioner had
written a letter Ex.WW1/M1 on 29.01.2007 in which he
mentioned that his services were terminated on 13.07.2006. In
his statement of claim, the petitioner has claimed that his
services were terminated on 10.09.2006. When the
Respondent/Management filed the written statement and
pleaded that the petitioner had worked with them till
17.07.2006 and thereafter absented himself from duty and that
they have not terminated his services on 10.09.2006 as claimed
by the petitioner, the petitioner preferred to file a rejoinder in
which he reiterated that his services were terminated on
10.09.2006 by the respondent. The petitioner had also
tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.WW1/A in which he
testified that his services were terminated by the Management
on 10.09.2006. Even during his cross-examination by the
respondent he did not claim that his services were terminated
on 13.07.2006 as he had so claimed before the Conciliation
Officer in his letter Ex.WW1/M1. The petitioner/workman did
not suggest to MW1 Shri Pramod Gupta in his cross-
examination that the services of the petitioner were terminated
on 13.07.2006.
9. A perusal of the cross-examination of the petitioner reflected
that he had admitted that he performed his last duty with the
respondent/Management on 16.07.2006. He also admitted in
his cross-examination having received letters dated 27.07.2006
Ex.WW1/M8 and 16.08.2006 Ex.WW1/M9 from the
respondent. Admittedly, by these letters, the respondent
informed the petitioner that he has been absenting from duty
w.e.f. 17.07.2006 and asked him to join his duties immediately
after receipt of letter. In his cross-examination, the petitioner
volunteered that he had sent replies to both these letters
through the Union but failed to file copies of those replies
allegedly sent to the respondent/Management.
10. Industrial Adjudicator found that a citation dated 14.03.2008
Ex.MW1/2 was got published by the Respondent/Management
in the newspaper to the effect that the petitioner has been
absent from duty without information since 17.07.2006. He
also observed that the Attendance Register MW1/W1 for the
month of July 2006 reflect that the petitioner worked with the
respondent till 17.07.2006.
11. The petitioner had taken contradictory stand before the
Conciliation Officer and the Industrial Adjudicator. Before the
Conciliation Officer the petitioner had stated that his services
were terminated by the respondent on 13.07.2006 whereas in
his statement of claim, rejoinder and affidavit tendered in
evidence, the petitioner had taken the stand that his services
were terminated by the respondent on 10.09.2006. The
petitioner has admitted in his cross-examination that he had
lastly worked with the Respondent/Management on
16.07.2006. This proves defence of the Respondent/
Management that the petitioner has worked till 17.07.2006
when he started absenting from duty. The petitioner's
admission about the receipt of letters dated 27.07.2006 and
16.08.2006 from the Respondent/Management informing him
that he has been unauthorizedly absent from duty since
17.07.2006 and should resume the duty immediately indicate
his conscious absence from duty. The respondent's stand
fortified by the admission of the petitioner. The petitioner
though claimed in his cross-examination that he had sent
replies to these letters but failed to file copies thereof on the
record. In view of this discussion, the Industrial Adjudicator
has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has
absented himself from duty unauthorizedly and his services
were never terminated by the respondent/Management as
claimed by the petitioner
12. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award
dated 10.03.2017.
13. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2018
DKB
