Delhi High Court
Sushmita Sundaram vs M/S Delta Airlines Inc on 8 July, 2019
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.07.2019
+ LPA 429/2019
SUSHMITA SUNDARAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. T.V. George, Advocate.
versus
M/S DELTA AIRLINES INC ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Mohna M. Lal and Ms. Geetali
Talukdar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. No. 29891/2019 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. Appl. No. 29892/2019 (for delay)
3. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 82 days
in filing the appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the application the application is
allowed and the delay is condoned.
5. C.M. stands disposed of.
LPA 429/2019
6. The appellant is aggrieved by para 5 of the order dated
13.3.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
2031/2007.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying on the judgment
of the Supreme Court titled as Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar
Gauri Shankar, Kanpur Nagar, (2015) 9 SCC 345, more particularly,
paras 24 and 25, submits that the Single Judge cannot call for
additional evidence while deciding the writ petition filed by the
management arising out of an award passed by the Labour Court.
Paras 24 and 25 are reproduced as under:-
"24. The contention urged on behalf of the respondent
Firm that the award of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs in lieu
of the reinstatement and 50% back wages by the High
Court is on account of the alleged closure of the
respondent establishment is neither supported by any
pleading nor any evidence has been adduced before the
Labour Court or this Court in that regard by the
respondent establishment. If any additional material is
produced before the High Court, the same would be
impermissible in law for the reason that the respondent
employer was required to plead with regard to the alleged
closure and substantial evidence must be produced in
support of the same before the Labour Court at the first
instance, and no such plea has been taken before the
Labour Court by them. In the absence of such a plea,
producing additional documents by the respondent
establishment before the High Court is totally
impermissible in law for the reason that the High Court's
jurisdiction is to examine the correctness of the award
passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its judicial
review power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India which is very limited.
25. In the present case, even if we consider the facts,
there is no additional material evidence produced on
record before the High Court and it has no jurisdiction to
receive the same and render its findings. Apart from the
said reason no other reason has been assigned by the
High Court in its judgment and other for modifying the
award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the legal
contention urged in this regard on behalf of the
respondent establishment is misconceived and the same is
liable to be rejected."
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, who enters appearance on
an advance copy, submits that the submissions of the petitioner so
made are not borne out from the record, inasmuch as, that the
management had raised a plea that workman was working during the
pendency of the matter, before the Labour Court. Even before the
High Court, an application has been filed giving relevant details to
show that the workman continues to work. She has produced in the
body of the application, the details of the employer, the Income Tax
Returns and the salary drawn. She submits that in this backdrop the
aforesaid order has been passed.
9. With the consent of the parties, we dispose of this appeal
leaving this question open to be decided by the learned Single Judge at
the time of final hearing, keeping the rights and contentions of both
the parties open in the light of the fact that the respondent has
submitted that this ground has not been taken for the first time in the
writ petition but was also raised before the Labour Court.
10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
JULY 08, 2019/AK
