Delhi High Court
M/S Prasad Psycho Corporation & ... vs Labour Department & Anr on 21 February, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.02.2019
+ W.P.(C) 8660/2016 & C.M. No.35636/2016 (for stay)
M/S PRASAD PSYCHO CORPORATION & ANR..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mukesh Rana, Mr.Mohit Singhal,
Mr.Abhay & Ms.Mamta, Advs.
versus
LABOUR DEPARTMENT & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pramod Kumar & Mr.Shavej
Khan, Advs. for R-1.
Mr.Rishu Kant Sharma, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners namely M/s. Prasad Psycho
Corporation based in Delhi and M/s. Indian Institution of Psychology based
in Noida have sought quashing of order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the
competent authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') based on a complaint filed by the
respondent no.2.
2. The brief facts as emerge from the record and are necessary for
adjudication of the present petition may be noted. The respondent no.2
claiming to have been working as an Assistant Professor (Guest) of
petitioner no.2 from April, 2014, on the last drawn wages of Rs.3,000/- per
day along with Rs.10,000/- for each topic per workshop, filed a complaint
before the competent authority under the Act on 25.08.2015, claiming a sum
of Rs.1,85,000/- from the petitioners. In her complaint, she alleged that she
had worked with petitioner no. 2 institute for 70 days between 15.04.2014
and 10.07.2014, but had not been paid her wages for the said period. A
perusal of the claim made by the respondent no.2 shows that she had
impleaded not only the petitioner no.2, Indian Institute of Psychology based
at Noida but had also impleaded petitioner no.1, i.e., M/s. Prasad Psycho
Corporation based at Delhi through its sole proprietor who was also the
Acting Chairman of petitioner No. 2, is the sole proprietor.
3. Since the petitioner no.1, i.e. M/s. Prasad Psycho Corporation was
admittedly based at Delhi, respondent no.2's claim petition was entertained
and allowed by the Competent authority in Delhi. Impugning the said order,
learned counsel for the petitioners states that a perusal of the claim statement
filed by the respondent no.2 as also the statement of one, Ms. Jyoti Gupta,
who had stepped into the witness box in support of respondent no.2's claim,
in itself makes it evident that the respondent no.2 was never engaged by the
petitioner no.1/corporation and had been engaged only by the petitioner no.2
at Noida. He states that respondent no.2 had wrongly impleaded petitioner
no.1 only in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the authority at Delhi, the
competent authority at Delhi did not at all have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain such a claim and therefore, prays that the impugned order be set
aside.
4. Neither the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, nor the learned
counsel for the respondent no.2, is able to dispute the aforesaid position that
the respondent no2 was engaged by petitioner no. 2 institute at Noida and
never had any connection with the petitioner no.1 in Delhi. It appears that
this facet was not brought to the notice of the competent authority at Delhi
which eventually passed the order. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners'
contention that the respondent no.2's claim, having arisen at Noida, was not
subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the competent authority at Delhi
deserves to be accepted.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that a
sum of Rs.25,000/- may have been payable by the petitioner no.2 to the
respondent no.2. In these circumstances, instead of requiring the respondent
no.2 to now approach the competent authority at Noida for the said amount
of Rs.1,85,100/- it is deemed appropriate to direct petitioner no. 2 institute to
pay to respondent no.2 the admittedly due amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with
reasonable compensation, which is quantified as a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
Thus, while setting aside the impugned order, it is directed that the
respondent no.2 will be paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner no. 2.
6. Since the petitioner has already deposited the awarded amount
pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2016, passed by this Court, the Registry is
directed to immediately release a sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate
interest accrued thereon in favour of the respondent no.2 and the remaining
amount with the accrued interest will be returned to the petitioner. It is made
clear that in the event the respondent no.2 intends to pursue her claim over
the remaining amount, as originally claimed by her in the claim petition, she
would be at liberty to institute proceedings to that effect before the
appropriate forum.
7. The petition is allowed and disposed of along with the pending
application in the aforesaid terms.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 21, 2019/gm
