Delhi High Court
Aman Nagrath vs Devender Mandal on 21 February, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: -21.02.2019
+ W.P.(C) 1244/2017 & CM APPL. 5671/2017
AMAN NAGRATH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M.Y. Khan, Adv.
versus
DEVENDER MANDAL ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner, the Director of M/s Meyer Seals
India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company')
impugns the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Authority under
Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act'), whereunder he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.
21,910/- along with an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the
respondent.
2. It may be noted that despite service, none appears for the
respondent. In these circumstances I have heard the submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and, with his assistance, perused
the record.
3. The respondent claiming to have been appointed as a Driver in
M/S Meyer Seals India Private Limited ( hereinafter referred to as the
Company) w.e.f. 02.02.1998, made a complaint under Section 21 of
the Act to the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Delhi(hereinafter
referred to as Authority) on 24.09.2014 alleging therein that though he
had been driving cars of the Company for the last many years, upon
his requesting the management to provide him with statutory facilities
including ESIC benefits, he was not only slapped and threatened but
was also illegally terminated from service on 03.09.2014 and that too
without being paid his leave encashment and accrued wages for the
period between 01.06.2014 and 03.09.2014.
4. Before the Authority, the petitioner in its reply to the complaint
took the plea that the respondent had never been employed by the
Company, but was infact his personal driver and used to reside in the
residential quarters provided by him. The petitioner also contended
that the respondent had om 09.05.2014 borrowed a sum of Rs 30,000/-
from him by way of advance, whereafter he became irregular at work
and in fact reported for duty only for a few days in July-August 2014.
He was, therefore, not entitled to receive any salary and was in fact
liable to refund back a sum of Rs.9990/- to the petitioner towards
repayment of the advance amount lend to him.
5. In support of their respective contentions, the parties led
evidence. While the respondent workman filed his own affidavit
reiterating that he was an employee of the Company and had not been
paid wages for the period in question i.e. from 01.06.2014 to
03.09.2014 as also the leave encashment and was therefore entitled to
receive a total sum of Rs. 60,812/- from the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the petitioner filed the affidavit of one of his
domestic help namely Mr.Ganesh Prasad, who stated that he had been
employed alongwith the respondent as the personal drivers of the
petitioner and they had both been residing at the residential quarters
provided by the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Prasad further stated that the
respondent workman had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the
petitioner by way of an advance payment of salary, which amount had
not been returned by him.
7. Based on the pleadings and evidence led before it, the
Authority rejected the petitioner's claim that the respondent was his
personal driver. In the light of the petitioner's own admission that it
had adjusted the salary and leave encashment payable to the
respondent against the sum of Rs 30,000/-, stated to have been paid to
him as advance, as also the fact that no evidence had been brought on
record by the petitioner to show that the respondent had worked only
for a few days, the Authority accepted the respondent's claim.
Accordingly, after computing the outstanding amount payable to the
respondent towards salary leave encashment, the Authority directed
the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.21,910/- along with an additional
compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent, within a period of 30
days .
8. Impugning the aforesaid order passed by the Authority, the
present petition has been filed by Shri. Aman Nagrath in his personal
capacity. Dr MY Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, besides reiterating the submissions made before the
Authority, submits that the impugned order is present and shows
complete non-application of mind. He submits that the Authority has
relied on the respondent's claim that he was the Company's employee
without any basis or proof of any kind, despite the petitioner's specific
stand that the respondent was his personal driver. He submits that
once there was nothing to show that the respondent was the
Company's employee, the Authority could not have entertained the
complaint as the Authority admittedly does not have jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint of an individual's employee to whom the
provisions of the Act are not applicable.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner but I am unable to persuade myself to accept the same. A
perusal of the impugned order shows that the basic issue before the
Authority was as to whether the respondent was an employee of the
Company or the personal driver of the petitioner, as it is this issue
which was crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the Authority to
entertain the respondent's complaint. As noted hereinabove, the
petitioner failed to produce any relevant documents including any
records of the Company before the Authority in support of his plea
that the respondent was never employed with the Company and had
merely tendered the evidence of one of his domestic helps namely
Shri Ganesh Prasad. In the light of the admitted position that the
vehicle driven by the respondent was registered in the Company's
name, the Authority rightly accepted the respondent's version that he
had been employed as the Company's driver. The Authority thereafter
allowed the respondent's claim by relying on the petitioner's own
admission that the salary due to the respondent for the period between
June to September 2014, had not been paid as the respondent had
worked for merely a few days during the said period, in support of
which contention as aforenoted, no evidence was led before the
Authority. In my opinion, once the petitioner failed to produce the
relevant documents in support of his assertions, the Authority based
on the limited evidence led before it was fully justified in holding the
respondent to be an employee of the Company and passing the
impugned order thereby allowing his claim.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no perversity or infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the Authority warranting the exercise of the
writ jurisdiction of this court.
11. The writ petition, being meritless, is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 21, 2019/sr
