Delhi High Court
Hira Lal & Ors vs M/S Ahlcon Public School on 8 August, 2019
$~ 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 08th August,2019
+ LPA 596/2016
HIRA LAL & ORS ..... Appellants
Through Mr. S. Mehdi Imam, Advocate
versus
M/S AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2015 passed
by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It may be noticed that there
was an initial labour dispute between 24 employees and the School,
which was pressed by only 20 employees. The Award rendered by the
Labour Court was assailed by the workmen. The employees of the
School(hereinafter referred to as the 'workmen') filed a complaint on
19.12.2002 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking a relief
of payment of minimum wages through the union. The services of the
workmen were terminated by the Management on 03.04.2003,
resultantly a legal notice was issued by the workmen to the
Management. No reply was received. The workmen received minimum
wages under protest through a contractor of the respondent
Management M/s. Pearl Organization (India) in the presence of the
respondent Management on the directions of the Management.
However, the workmen were not reinstated. A statement of claim was
filed by the workmen before the Dy. Labour Commissioner. The stand
of the Management has been that the workmen are employees of the
contractor M/s. Pearl Organization (India) and the Management has no
privity of contract with the workmen, and role to play in their
employment nor any appointment letter was issued, neither any wages
paid. After the evidence was recorded, the Labour Court passed an
Award dated 16.07.2015. As per the Award, barring three workmen,
namely, Jagat Ram, Hira Lal (since deceased) and Kadam Singh, none
of the workmen were entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the Award, a
writ petition was filed by the workmen. The writ petition was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated
24.11.2015, which had led to the filing of the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Labour Court
has failed to take into consideration the material placed on record and
has erred in rejecting the claims of the workmen and also erred in
granting compensation in the sum ranging from Rs.1,20,000/- to
Rs.1,50,000/- to the other three workmen, which amount is highly
insufficient and, moreover an order of reinstatement has not been
passed. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
learned Single Judge has also erred in dismissing the writ petition on
the ground that there is no evidence to connect the workmen with the
School. Learned counsel also submits that the workmen worked for the
School and hence the School is responsible for the wages and the
workmen were wrongly terminated by the School. In the light of the
above submissions, it is prayed that the workmen should be reinstated.
Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Management did not produce the contractor at the time of evidence.
The learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has noticed
that the evidence of the contractor was not relevant and moreover
summons were issued but he did not turn up without taking into
consideration that the contractor was a material witness.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that with regard to the
relief granted by the Labour Court to three workmen, namely, Jagat
Ram, Hira Lal (since deceased) and Kadam Singh is concerned, a
separate writ petition being W.P.(C).9760/2015 has been filed by the
respondent. It is contended that all the workers were employed by the
contractor and the School had no connect with the workmen. It is thus
contended that the Labour Court as also the learned Single Judge of this
Court have rightly dismissed the claim of the workmen and the claim
for compensation could not be saddled on the Management.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered their
rival submissions and also examined the Award and the order passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court. The consistent stand of the
appellants is that they were employed by the Management, i.e. the
School, while the School has taken a categorical stand that the School
has not employed the workmen and they are workmen of the contractor.
The Labour Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court have
returned a categorical finding that there is no document on record which
would connect the workmen with the School. In our view, the claims of
the workmen have rightly been rejected. As far as the three workmen,
i.e. Jagat Ram, Hira Lal (since deceased) and Kadam Singh are
concerned, the respondent School has already assailed the order of the
Labour Court. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits
that since workman Hira Lal has died, he would not contest the writ
petition with respect to Hira Lal and the amount deposited in the case of
Hira Lal will be disbursed to his widow in accordance with law. The
learned counsel for the appellants appreciates the gesture of the learned
counsel for the respondent.
5. In our view, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
6. It is made clear that the order passed in the present appeal will not stand
in the way of the respondent in the writ petition filed by them.
7. No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
AUGUST 08, 2019
pst
