Delhi High Court
Vavasi Telegence Pvt Ltd vs Sehdev Yadav on 5 October, 2018
$~176
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10598/2018 & CM APPL. 41301/2018(for exemption),
CM APPL. 41302/2018 (for stay)
VAVASI TELEGENCE PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv.
versus
SEHDEV YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
% JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. This writ petition impugns the Award, dated 11th April, 2018,
passed by the Labour Court-V, Dwarka (hereinafter referred to as "the
Labour Court"), arising from reference, dated 27th September, 2011,
under Sections 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act").
2. The order regarding the dispute contained the following single
term of reference:
"Whether the services of Sh. Sehdev Yadav S/o Sh. Jago
Yadav have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the Management; if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect ?"
3. Statement of Claim was filed by the respondent-workman, who
contended that he had been employed by the petitioner as driver on
21st May, 2004, at a monthly salary of ₹ 11,502/-, and was working for
the petitioner as a driver since then. The respondent contended,
further, that the petitioner had not provided facilities such as
appointment letter, weekly and yearly leave, overtime, bonus and
other allowances and that when the respondent demanded the same,
the petitioner terminated his services on 10th March, 2011, without
notice and in default of payment of salary for the period 1st September,
2010 to 10th March, 2011.
4. Consequent to his termination, the respondent sent a notice of
demand dated 11th July, 2011 to the petitioner, which, predictably, met
with no response. Conciliation proceedings were attempted, and on
their remaining fruitless, the respondent initiated the industrial dispute
which led to the passing of the impugned Award.
5. In his Statement of Claim, the respondent also contended that he
had been unemployed since the date of his termination.
6. In the written statement, opposing the Statement of Claim of the
respondent, the petitioner admitted the fact that the Respondent had
been employed with it, but alleged that he was guilty of habitual
absence from duty and also of raising certain fraudulent bills.
However, the Labour Court notes, in para 9 of the impugned Award,
that, in the entire written statement, there was not even a whisper of an
averment regarding the issue of termination of the services of the
respondent, or justifying the same.
7. Consequent on completion of pleadings, the following issues
were framed, by the Labour Court, vide order dated 21st April, 2015:
"a) Whether services of the workman have been illegally or
unjustifiably terminated by the management? OPW.
b) As per the terms of reference;
c) Relief."
8. The respondent examined himself as WW-1, and deposed along
the lines of the Statement of Claim submitted by him. He also
exhibited certain documents. He was cross examined, during which,
he denied the suggestion of having been ever involved in
misappropriation of funds or manipulation of bills.
9. The petitioner chose not to lead any evidence. The opportunity
to lead evidence, of the petitioner, was finally closed, by the Labour
Court, vide order dated 30th January, 2018. Undisputedly, the said
order has never been challenged by the petitioner. Neither does the
present writ petition include any challenge to the said order.
10. Following thereupon, the Labour Court returned the following
findings, on the issues framed by it:
"15. After considering the claim, reply; document and the
evidence led on record, the issue wise decision of the court is
as under:-
Issue No. l: Whether services of the workman have
been illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the
management? OPW
16. As far as the relationship of employer and employee
between the parties is concerned, the same is admitted by the
management.
17. The only defence taken by the management is to the
effect that the workman was involved in raising fraudulent
bills with respect to service of cars.
18. However, surprisingly nothing has been stated in the
WS either denying or admitting the termination of services of
the workman.
19. Furthermore, the management has also failed to lead
any evidence in support of the defence taken by it in the WS
putting allegations upon the workman regarding forging of
records.
20. Accordingly, in the circumstances, in view of willful
and deliberate negligence on the part of the management to
prove the allegation of misconduct on the part of the workman
coupled with the factum of neither denying nor admitting the
termination of the workman, the court has come to the
conclusion that the services of the workman were illegally and
unjustifiably terminated by the management.
21. Issue no.1 is according, decided in favour of the
workman.
Issue No.2: As per the terms of reference. and
Issue No.3: Relief
22. In view of the outcome of issue no.1, the court hereby
hold that the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service
with full back wages along with consequential benefits.
23. Reference answered accordingly."
11. The present writ petition is completely silent regarding the
actual dispute which stands adjudicated by the impugned Award by
the Labour Court. All averments in the writ petition relate to a demand
of ₹ 72,846/-, stated to have been made by the respondent against the
petitioner, and the denial, of the petitioner, to the liability in respect
thereof. There is no averment, whatsoever, regarding the legality or
otherwise of the impugned Award, or why the petitioner chose not to
prosecute the proceedings before the Labour Court, and why it
allowed itself to remain unrepresented and chose not to lead any
evidence.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, even before this
Court, sought to argue on whether any monies were due to the
respondent from the petitioner.
13. It is clear that the case set up by the petitioner in this Court is
completely tangential to the actual dispute which stands adjudicated
by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has, noting the fact that no
evidence was led by the petitioner to rebut the evidence led by the
respondent-workman, accepted the said response of the respondent
and proceeded to decide the reference made to it. On the correctness
thereof, or otherwise, the writ petition is completely silent.
14. No submissions are to be found in the writ petition, explaining
the inaction, on the part of the petitioner, in prosecuting the matter
before the Labour Court. It is an admitted position that the order,
closing the right of the petitioner to lead evidence, as passed by the
Labour Court on 30th January, 2018, also remained unchallenged, and
this, too, remains unexplained in the writ petition.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, too, advances no submission
on this aspect of the matter.
16. In view of the above, I do not see how this Court can interfere
with the impugned Award of the Labour Court, which has necessarily,
therefore, to be sustained in its entirety.
17. This writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 05, 2018
dsn
