Delhi High Court
Central Cottage Industries ... vs Radhey Shyam on 20 November, 2019
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision :- 20.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 10791/2016
CENTRAL COTTAGE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF INDIA
LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kumar Abhishek & Mr.Chetan
Joshi, Advs.
versus
RADHEY SHYAM .... Respondent
Through: Mr.Syed Sajad Ali, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.11584/2017 (u/S 17B of the I.D. Act)
1. This is an application filed by the respondent under Section
17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. It has been averred in the application that vide the impugned
award, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent, but
despite the respondent's willingness, the petitioner is adamant in not
reinstating the respondent. It has been further averred that despite his
best efforts, the respondent has not been able to find any alternate
employment and is, therefore, finding it very difficult to make his
ends meet, since he has no source of income. Though a reply to the
present application has been filed, there is no averment therein that
WP (C) No.10791/2016 Page 1 of 5
the respondent's plea that he is not gainfully employed, is incorrect.
3. In these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to
accept the respondent's stand that he continues to remain unemployed
and is, therefore, eligible to receive the benefits under Section 17B of
the ID Act. The application, is therefore, entitled to succeed and is
accordingly allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay to the
respondent the last drawn wages from the date of passing of the award
till today. The arrears in terms of this order will be paid to the
respondent within a period of 8 weeks.
4. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10791/2016 & C.M. No.42258/2016 (for stay)
5. The present writ petition filed by the management assails the ex
parte Award dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court-1,
Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi in ID No.135/2015. Under the
impugned Award, the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the
respondent with full back wages including all consequential benefits.
6. The present writ petition has been filed primarily on the ground
that the petitioner did not receive any notice from the Labour Court
regarding pendency of an Industrial Dispute or regarding filing of the
claim petition by the respondent and therefore was unable to present
its defence before the Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had been diligently appearing before the Conciliation Officer and
therefore there was no reason as to why the petitioner would not have
WP (C) No.10791/2016 Page 2 of 5
appeared before the Labour Court on receiving of any notice from it.
8. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the record of the
Labour Court has been received, perusal of which shows that upon
receiving the reference, the Court passed the following orders on
03.06.2015:-
"Fresh reference has been received. Let it be registered. Notice
to the parties may be issued for 10.08.2015 for filing of
statement of claim".
9. It is noted that on 10.08.2015, neither the claimant nor the
management was present and the Court without examining as to
whether the respondent had been served, simply adjourned the matter
for 01.10.2015 for filing of claim statement. On 01.10.2015, the
Court, after noticing that the claim statement had been filed,
adjourned the matter for 24.11.2015 directing written statement to be
filed. On the next date though, the Court directed issuance of fresh
notice to the management for 12.01.2016. But on the said date, the
Court, without even verifying whether any fresh notice had been
issued or served on the petitioner, proceeded ex parte against the
petitioner and listed the matter for ex-parte evidence of the
respondent-claimant on 08.03.2016 and thereafter proceeded to pass
the impugned Award on 29.07.2016.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the
aforesaid facts it is evident that the petitioner was never served with
any notice and on this ground alone, the Award is liable to be set
aside.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to
WP (C) No.10791/2016 Page 3 of 5
dispute the aforesaid submissions and merely states that once the
order passed by the Labour Court records that the petitioner had failed
to appear before the Court there is no reason why this Court should
interfere with the impugned Award. He therefore prays that the writ
petition be dismissed.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record with their assistance, I am constrained to observe that the
Labour Court has proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and passed
the ex parte Award in a most mechanical manner without even
examining whether the petitioner had ever been served. There is
nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was ever served with
notice of the claim petition and therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the petitioner's averments that it was never served with any
notice from the Labour Court.
13. In these circumstances, the Award cannot be sustained and is
therefore liable to be set aside. While setting aside the impugned
award, the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh
adjudication.
14. In order to expedite the fresh adjudication of the industrial
dispute, the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on
08.01.2020. The petitioner is granted four weeks time to file its reply
to the claim petition. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed by the
respondent/claimant within four weeks thereafter.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the rival claims of the parties and it will be open for the
Labour Court to examine the case on its own merits in accordance
WP (C) No.10791/2016 Page 4 of 5
with law.
16. The writ petition along with pending application is disposed of
in the aforesaid terms.
REKHA PALLI, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
'SDP'
