Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Jain vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 5 November, 2019
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision :- 05.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 11487/2016 & C.M. No.45127/2016 (for stay)
MANOJ KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manish Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh with
Mr.Raghuvendra Pandey, Advs. for
R-1.
Mr.Triloki Pandit, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
impugning the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the competent
authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 ('the
Act' for short). Under the impugned order, the competent authority
held the respondent no.2/claimant to be entitled to receive an amount
of Rs.27,014/- as unpaid wages from the petitioner, after coming to
the conclusion that he had not been paid his wages/salary for the
period between 01.02.2013 to 30.04.2013.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent no.2, claiming that he
had been employed as a 'Checker' with M/s Sona Sunehari through
WP (C) No.11487/2016 Page 1 of 4
the respondent no.3/Contractor with last drawn monthly wages at
Rs.7722/-, approached the competent authority under Section 21 of
the Act, complaining that he had not received his wages for the period
between 01.02.2013 and 30.04.2013. In his claim petition, the
respondent no.2 had arrayed the petitioner as the proprietor of M/s
Sona Sunehari, while arraying respondent no.3 as the Contractor of
M/s Sona Sunehari. Despite repeated opportunities, neither the
petitioner nor the Contractor nor any authorised representative of M/s
Sona Sunehari filed any reply before the competent authority, which
subsequently proceeded ex-parte against them and passed the order
impugned herein on the basis of the unrebutted claims of the
respondent no.2. Apart from holding the claimant to be entitled to
receive an amount of Rs.27,014/- from the petitioner, as noted above,
the impugned order also records that in the absence of any documents
to prove a verbal/written agreement between the petitioner and the
Contractor and any independent address of the Contractor being made
available before it, the claimant was entitled to receive payment of his
dues from the petitioner himself. The competent authority, however,
granted liberty to the petitioner to recover this amount from the
Contractor. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been
preferred.
3. Assailing the order passed by the competent authority, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged Contractor Sh. Amir
Khan, was the proprietor of an independently run business of
readymade garments operating in the name of M/s.Aarzo and was, in
fact, the actual employer of the claimant. He submits that the claimant
WP (C) No.11487/2016 Page 2 of 4
had been engaged solely by Sh. Amir Khan in order to discharge
duties with respect to his own enterprise, M/s. Aarzo, and the
petitioner, who was the landlord of the premises where the business of
M/s Aarzo is being conducted, used to purchase readymade goods
from them. He further submits that the claim petition filed before the
competent authority incorrectly refers to his tenant, Sh. Amir Khan, as
the Contractor of M/s Sona Sunehari. By drawing my attention to
Annexure P-1, whereby the bills and delivery challans purportedly
issued by M/s Aarzo in favour of M/s Sona Sunehari have been placed
on record, he submits that M/s Arzo was supplying goods to the
petitioner and had M/s Arzo been his Contractor, then such bills and
challans could not exist. He further submits that once the competent
authority itself found that the respondent no.2 was entitled to receive
his wages from the alleged Contractor, i.e., Sh. Amir Khan, the
petitioner cannot be saddled with this liability merely because his
address was not traceable. He, therefore, submits that the impugned
order is wholly perverse and is liable to be set aside.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and find no merit in any of the contentions raised by him.
5. A perusal of the record shows that in his claim petition before
the competent authority, the claimant/respondent no.2 had specifically
described Sh. Amir Khan as a Contractor of the petitioner's concern,
viz. M/s Sona Sunehari, which fact was never denied by the petitioner
before the Court by filing any reply thereto. Pursuant to this Court's
order, the record of the competent authority was summoned and a
perusal thereof shows that the petitioner had appeared before the
WP (C) No.11487/2016 Page 3 of 4
competent authority on 23.12.2013, when the matter was adjourned to
05.02.2014; however, the petitioner was absent on every date of
hearing thereafter. Consequently, neither was the stand of the
petitioner placed before the competent authority, nor were the alleged
bills raised by M/s Arzo in favour of the petitioner's concern ever
placed before the competent authority when the impugned order came
to be passed. In these circumstances the alleged bills filed before this
Court, having been placed on record for the very first time, cannot be
adverted to for the purpose of examining the correctness of the
impugned order. In any event, given that the competent authority has
specifically granted liberty in this regard, the petitioner may claim the
amount payable by him to respondent no.2 under the impugned order,
from Sh. Amir Khan.
6. I, thus, find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting
exercise of my writ jurisdiction.
7. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed along with the
pending application.
REKHA PALLI, J.
NOVEMBER 05, 2019
gm
