Delhi High Court
Spirited Auto Car (I) Ltd. ... vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) ... on 4 February, 2020
$~44 to 49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 04.02.2020
+ W.P.(C) 1282/2020, CM APPL. 4464/2020, CM APPL. 4465/2020
& CM APPL. 4466/2020
SPRIRITED AUTO CAR (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA)
..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH THE LABOUR
DEPARTMENT AND ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 1283/2020, CM APPL. 4467/2020, CM APPL. 4468/2020
& CM APPL. 4469/2020
SPIRITED AUTO CAR (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA) ..... Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH THE LABOUR
DEPARTMENT AND ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 1285/2020, CM APPL. 4472/2020, CM APPL. 4473/2020
& CM APPL. 4474/2020
SPIRITED AUTO CAR (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA)..... Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH THE LABOUR
DEPARTMENT AND ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 1286/2020, CM APPL. 4475/2020, CM APPL. 4476/2020
W.P. (C) 1282/2020 & connected matters Page 1 of 5
& CM APPL. 4477/2020
SPIRITED AUTO CAR (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA)..... Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH: THE LABOUR
DEPARTMENT AND ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 1287/2020, CM APPL. 4478/2020, CM APPL. 4479/2020
& CM APPL. 4480/2020
SPIRITED AUTO CAR (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA) ..... Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH: THE LABOUR
DEPARTMENT AND ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 1289/2020, CM APPL. 4483/2020, CM APPL. 4484/2020
& CM APPL. 4485/2020
SPIRITED AUTO CAR (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA)
..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH LABOUR
DEPARTMENT AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, Mr. Ashutosh
Kumar Singh, Mr. Kundan Kumar Roy and
Mr. B.L. Satija, Advocates for petitoner.
Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advocate alongwith
Mr. K. Manoj Singh, Dy. Labour for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
W.P. (C) 1282/2020 & connected matters Page 2 of 5
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. These petitions impugn the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the
learned Labour Court in New ID No: 1546-17, whereby the claims of the
workmen were accepted, the petitioners were directed to be re-instated with
full back wages and continuity of service.
2. Since the version of the workmen went unrebutted and
uncontroverted, hence, their claim was allowed. The facts are, that services
of six workmen who were engaged by the petitioner/management as washer-
boys at a motor vehicle service centre, having varied monthly salary, were
terminated on 23.01.2017 without issuance of any notice to them. They
contended that an annoyed management threw them out when they
demanded requisite facilities which ought to have been provided to them in
terms of the labour laws. The workmen approached the Labour Conciliation
Officer for redressal of their grievances. However, despite service of notice
of the conciliation proceedings before the learned Labour Commissioner, the
petitioner did not participate in the proceedings. Therefore, a reference was
made to the Labour Court as under:-
"(a) Whether the services of workmen Dinesh & 05
others as shown in Annexure "A" have been terminated and/or
unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
"5. The workman thereafter approached the Labour
Commissioner who summoned the management but it
failed to appear therein and accordingly the above reference
was made to this court."
3. Before the latter too, the petitioner did not put-up its case diligently.
It entered appearance but did not file its written submissions in time. A cost
of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed to facilitate the filing of the written
submissions. However, neither was the cost paid nor were the written
submissions filed. In the circumstances, the learned Labour Court was of the
view that there being no opposition to the claims of the workmen despite
numerous opportunities having been granted to the management, both before
it as well as before the Conciliation Officer, where they had constantly failed
to appear or contest the claim, therefore, the relief had to be granted. The
impugned order had recorded inter alia:-
.......
11. As the management has not come forward to file any
Written Statement or to cross-examine the claimant or to lead
its own evidence, the evidence of the claimant remain
uncontroverted and unreubutted and as such accepted on its
face value.
12. Hence, the claimant is held entitled to the relief of
reinstatement with fullback wages and continuity of service."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the management
had made a representation to the Conciliation Officer by a letter dated 24 th
April 2017. However, there is no proof that the said document was either
served upon or otherwise received by the Conciliation Officer.
5. After some arguments in the forenoon the case was passed over to
facilitate the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to bring to the court
records of the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. In the post-lunch
session, the records have been produced and perused by the Court. It does
not contain any representation or application by the management before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner/ Conciliation Officer in the conciliation
proceedings. The proceedings record the signatures of all the claimants but
the presence of counsel for the petitioner is not recorded on any date,
although he submits that, he had appeared in the proceedings and had
submitted the said letter. He does not specify the date on which he appeared
before the Conciliation Officer nor is any reason offered as to why the letter
was not marked as duly received, when it was allegedly tendered to the
Conciliation Officer. Surely as a counsel he would be better placed to ensure
that the document was brought on record when it was tendered to the office
of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. If according to the petitioner, the
proceedings before the Conciliation Officer were erroneously recorded, it
was always open to it to have it rectified. However, no effort was made in
this regard, perhaps because the petitioner did not find anything erroneous in
the recording of the proceedings.
6. Lastly, despite repeated opportunities having been granted to the
petitioner it chose not to bring these issues before the learned Labour Court
in the claim proceedings. Quite clearly the petitioner did not contest the
claim of the workmen. In the circumstances, the relief granted in the
impugned order cannot be faulted. The Court finds no reason to interfere
with it.
7. The petitions are without merit and are accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2020
RW
