Delhi High Court
Aklim And Anr. vs M/S Ganesh Metal Industries. on 16 May, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on : 19th September, 2017
Date of decision : 16th May, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 8345/2017 & CM APPL. 34459/2017
AKLIM AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.N. Jha, Adv.
versus
M/S GANESH METAL INDUSTRIES. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioners no. 1 & 2 Aklim s/o Mohd. Hamid and Krishan
Shah s/o Sh. Kamu Shah respectively have assailed the impugned
award dated 27.02.2016 of the learned POLC-XVII, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi vide which their claims were dismissed qua the
reference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide Order No.
F-24(2189)2002-Lab./21208-12 dated 27.11.2002, which was to the
effect : -
"Whether the services of Sh. Baleshwar and 4 others as
shown in Annexure- 'A' have been terminated illegally
and / or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to
what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith
consequential benefit in terms of existing laws /
Government notifications and to what other relief are
they entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect.
Annexure - 'A'
S. No. Name of workman Father's name
1. S/Sh. Baleshwar S/Sh. Teji Shah
2. Aklim Mohd. Teji Shah
3. Kishan Parshad Kaku !!broken!!
4. Arvind Laljee
5. Vijay Singh Vishwa Nath Singh
2. Qua the petitioner no. 1 Aklim s/o Mohd. Hamid, the impugned
award holds to the effect that the petitioner no. 1 had left the services
of the management of the respondent voluntarily.
3. Qua the petitioner no. 2 Krishan Shah s/o Sh. Kamu Shah, the
impugned award held to the effect that a settlement had been arrived at
between the petitioner no. 2 and the management of the respondent
and a sum of Rs.7,000/- was paid vide receipt Ex.WW1/M2 to the
petitioner no. 2 towards all his claims on 08.08.2002 and that the
services of the petitioner no. 2 were terminated in March, 2002 which
amount having thus been received by the petitioner no. 2 after
termination of his services, he had settled the case with the
management and was thus in view of the settlement, not entitled to
any relief.
4. A perusal of the petition indicates that the avowed contention of
the petitioner no. 1 (apart from challenging the impugned award to put
forth that the petitioner no. 1 had not voluntarily left the services of
the respondent), vide Ground-G of the petition is to the effect that the
petitioner no. 1 without prejudice to the said contentions was in
any event entitled to the relief of gratuity, leave encashment,
bonus and arrears of salary dehors the issue of the illegal
termination of his services.
5. The avowed contention raised by the petitioner no. 2 is to the
effect that the reference had been made on 27.11.2002 by the
Government of NCT of Delhi qua his claim to the learned Labour
Court and the contention raised on behalf of the management of the
respondent that he had arrived at a settlement with the management of
which there was no information given to the learned Labour Court,
was in fact, a sham settlement and a farce in as much as the petitioner
no. 2 was kept in the dark regarding his statutory entitlement and that
he had not even been apprised of his entitlement of his earned wages,
retrenchment compensation, notice pay, bonus and gratuity etc. in as
much as he had been working with the respondent since the year 1997.
6. On a consideration of the submissions that have been made,
without any observations on the merits or demerits thereof, it is
considered appropriate in the interest of justice, that notice of the
petition and CM APPL. 34459/2017 for placing on record additional
documents be issued to the respondent on taking of steps by the
petitioner which be so issued through all permissible modes, including
approved courier with the tracking report being placed on record,
returnable on 29th July, 2019 on which date the matter be placed
before the concerned Roster Bench.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
th
May 16 , 2019/mk
