Delhi High Court
M/S Kumar Food Industries Ltd vs Sdm Alipur Delhi Through Govt Of ... on 23 December, 2020
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2020
22:14:43
$~19, 20, 23, 24 & 27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd December, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 10969/2020 & CM APPLs. 34325/2020, 34326/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate (M:
9899970368)
versus
SDM ALIPUR DELHI THROUGH: GOVT OF NCT
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Archit Krishna, Advocate for Mr.
Jawahar Raja, ASC (C), GNCTD for R-
1 & 2.
Mr. Bhupal Singh Rawat, AR for R-3.
20 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 10972/2020 & CM APPLs. 34330/2020, 34331/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate.
versus
SDM ALIPUR DELHI THROUGH: GOVT OF NCT AND
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Archit Krishna, Advocate for Mr.
Jawahar Raja, ASC (C), GNCTD for R-
1 & 2.
Mr. Bhupal Singh Rawat, AR for R-3.
23 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 10997/2020 & CM APPLs. 34376/2020, 34377/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate.
versus
SDM ALIPUR DELHI THROUGH: GOVT OF NCT AND ORS. RAM
UDGAAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Archit Krishna, Advocate for Mr.
Jawahar Raja, ASC (C), GNCTD for R-
1 & 2.
Mr. Bhupal Singh Rawat, AR for R-3.
24 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 11002/2020 & CM APPLs. 34384/2020, 34385/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 10969/2020 & connected matters Page 1 of 6
Signing Date:23.12.2020 21:21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2020
22:14:43
versus
SDM ALIPUR DELHI THROUGH: GOVT OF NCT
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Archit Krishna, Advocate for Mr.
Jawahar Raja, ASC (C), GNCTD for R-
1 & 2.
Mr. Bhupal Singh Rawat, AR for R-3.
27 AND
+ W.P.(C) 11037/2020 & CM APPLs. 34480/2020, 34481/2020
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Advocate.
versus
SDM ALIPUR DELHI THROUGH: GOVT OF NCT
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Archit Krishna, Advocate for Mr.
Jawahar Raja, ASC (C), GNCTD for R-
1 & 2.
Mr. Bhupal Singh Rawat, AR for R-3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. This is the second round of writ petitions filed by the Petitioners herein.
The present petitions have been filed challenging the execution of ex-parte
awards dated 16th October, 2019 passed by the ld. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court (hereinafter 'POLC'), till the decision in the Order IX Rule 13 CPC
applications filed by the Petitioners, is taken. The order dated 9th December,
2020, issued by the SDM's office, by which the bank account of the Petitioner
has been attached, has also been challenged.
3. In the first round of writ petitions, which were decided on 14th August,
2020, the grievance of the Petitioner was that by the impugned order therein,
the Labour Court had dismissed the consolidated application filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.12.2020 21:21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2020
22:14:43
Petitioners for obtaining copies of the entire proceedings, in which the ex-
parte awards came to be passed against them. This Court had taken
cognizance of the said petitions and had passed the following order:
"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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.12.2020 21:21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2020
22:14:43
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.12.2020 21:21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2020
22:14:43
proceeded with ex parte or not. All contentions of
parties are left upon."
4. Post the passing of the order on 14th August, 2020, the Petitioners
moved applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and stay of award, before
the POLC. However, till date, for one reason or the other, the same have not
been decided.
5. A perusal of the orders passed by the ld. POLC shows that initially, the
POLC who had dealt with these matters i.e. Sh. Ramesh Kumar - II was on
leave due to illness and the matters were shifted to the POLC - Sh. Pawan
Kumar Matto. However, before the said ld. POLC could finally hear the
applications, the Respondent-Workmen moved applications before the ld.
District Judge for transfer of the matters as the original POLC i.e. Sh. Ramesh
Kumar-II had resumed office and the Workmen submitted that the matters
should be listed before the POLC who had passed the ex-parte awards in the
first place. According to the Petitioners, the said transfer petitions have been
taken up on 18th November, 2020 and again on 22nd December, 2020. Ld.
Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the ld. District Judge has now relegated
the matters to the appropriate Government for marking the matter to the
appropriate POLC.
6. In the first call, when these matters were listed before this Court, ld.
counsel for the Petitioners was requested to contact the ld. counsel for the
Respondents, who was served with advance copy of these writs, to request
him to appear in the proceedings.
7. Thereafter, Mr. Bhupal Singh Rawat, Authorised Representative of the
Respondent has entered appearance in the matter and submits that the matters
were taken up before the ld. POLC - Sh. Pawan Kumar Matto today, who has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.12.2020 21:21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2020
22:14:43
passed an order of stay. However, the exact content of the said order is not yet
available to the counsel.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and the fact that since
14th August, 2020, no effective proceedings have in fact taken place and the
matters are only being moved from one POLC to the District Judge, and then
back to another POLC, without any effective adjudication, this Court is of the
view that the matter should now be taken up expeditiously on merits.
Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
i) The matters shall now be taken up before the ld. POLC - Sh.
Ramesh Kumar - II who will adjudicate on the applications under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the stay application, within a period of three
months from today;
ii) The attachment order of the Petitioner's bank account dated 9th
December, 2020, issued by the SDM shall remain stayed. No
proceedings for recovery shall be initiated till the decision in the Order
IX Rule 13 applications are adjudicated;
iii) Parties shall however ensure that no adjournments are sought
before the ld. POLC and the matters are heard expeditiously.
9. Litigation expenses of Rs.10, 000/- for each of the Workmen shall be
paid by the Petitioner, within a period of two weeks.
10. The present petitions, along with all pending applications, is disposed
of in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DECEMBER 23, 2020
Rahul/A
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.12.2020 21:21
