Delhi High Court
M/S Kumar Food Industries Ltd vs Govt Of Nct & Anr. on 14 August, 2020
SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR
14.08.2020 21:23
$~3, 4 & 6 to 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th August, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 5255/2020 & CM APPLs. 18940/2020, 18941/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate (M-
9899970368)
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate for R-1
(M-9810664300)
4 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 5256/2020 & CM APPLs. 18942/2020, 18943/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate for R-1
6 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 5270/2020 & CM APPLs. 18988/2020, 18989/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate for R-1
7 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 5271/2020 & CM APPLs. 18990/2020, 18991/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 5255/2020 & connected matters Page 1 of 4
Signing Date:14.08.2020 20:36
GOVT OF NCT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate for R-1
8 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 5279/2020 & CM APPLs. 19020/2020, 19021/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been held through video-conferencing.
2. The present petitions have been preferred challenging the impugned
order dated 4th August, 2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
The brief background is that the Respondent/Workmen had instituted
industrial disputes against the Petitioner/Management and ex parte awards
were passed on 16th October, 2019. The case of the Petitioner is that it was
informed of the awards which were passed only when the letters dated 10th
July 2020 in respect of the non-implementation of the awards were received
from the Deputy Labour Commissioner/ Implementation Officer of the
GNCTD.
3. Ms. Nandita Abrol, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits
that upon being served with the said letters dated 10th July, 2020, the Petitioner
approached the Labour Court by means of a consolidated Application on 23rd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.08.2020 20:36
July, 2020 for obtaining the copies of the entire proceedings before the Labour
Court. In the said Application on 4th August, 2020, the Labour Court passed
an order rejecting the same. It also did not direct providing of the record of
the cases and has observed that the Petitioner failed to appear in the
proceedings despite being served, hence leading to the ex parte award against
the Management.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner does not have
any records of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the rejection of
application to provide the records is not tenable as the Petitioner should be
permitted to avail of its remedies in accordance with law.
5. A perusal of the application filed by the Petitioner shows that the
limited prayer in the said application was for permission to obtain the
complete files of LIR Nos. 3145/17, 3146/17, 3147/17, 3148/17 and 3149/17.
While deciding the said application, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has
observed that the Petitioner did not appear despite service and therefore
waived his remedies.
6. The approach of the Labour Court is erroneous inasmuch as it cannot
be presumed that the Petitioner's case that it did not have the records and files
of the proceedings is incorrect. Though the management may have been
proceeded ex parte, leading to the award dated 16th October, 2019, the
management ought to be allowed to avail of its remedies to challenge the said
order in accordance with law. Thus, the directions ought to have been given
by the Presiding Officer for issuance of the copies of the records and the files.
No party can be deprived of access to records. Inspection ought to be
permitted and if the same is not possible the Petitioner ought to be permitted
to obtain certified/uncertified copies to avail its remedies in accordance with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.08.2020 20:36
law.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that the copies of the record of LIR Nos.
3145/17, 3146/17, 3147/17, 3148/17 and 3149/17 be provided to the
Petitioner within a period of one week from today. Upon the same being
provided, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of its remedies in accordance
with law. In view of this order, the Implementation Officer shall adjourn the
matter, stated to be listed before him on 20th August, 2020, by one month in
order to enable the Petitioner to avail its remedies. Upon the expiry of one
month, the Implementation Officer is free to proceed in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits
of the dispute as also the question as to whether the Petitioner was rightly
served or rightly proceeded with ex parte or not. All contentions of parties are
left upon.
8. The present petitions with all pending applications are disposed of in
the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
AUGUST 14, 2020
Rahul/A
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.08.2020 20:36
