Delhi High Court
M/S Rajdhani Properties vs Shri Vijay Kumar on 13 February, 2020
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 13.02.2020
+ W.P.(C) 799/2020 & CM APPL. 2442/2020
M/S RAJDHANI PROPERTIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shalini Jolly, Adv.
versus
SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Sinha, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
1. This petition impugns the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the
learned Labour Commissioner, wherein the petitioner was proceeded ex-
parte. The learned Labour Commissioner has recorded as under:
"6. Claimant has filed written arguments on record.
Since after filing reply respondent did not appeared
for leading any evidence to prove contends of his
reply on merit as such without any testimony reply
filed by respondent is not considerable. In view of
this, I have left no option except to consider claim of
claimant. Accordingly, it is prove by claimant on the
basis of documents placed on record that M/s
Rajdhani Properties exists at the given address in
claim and employee employers relationship exists and
accordingly claimant is entitled his earned wages for
the period from 1.7.2012 to 30.12.2012 @ Rs.12000/-
p.m. which comes Rs.72,000/- but respondent had
already paid Rs.22,000/ out of Rs.72000/- to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
Signing Date:28.02.2020
13:04:53
claimant as such respondent management is liable to
pay Rs.50000/- by way of demand draft in the name
of claimant alongwith Rs. 15,000/- compensation to
claimant Sh. Vijay Kumar.
7. In view of above discussion and under the Act, this
Authority is empowered to hear and decide all claims
out of delayed payment or non payment of earned
wages of an employee employed in an establishment
as per section 21(3) of the Act. Accordingly, I direct
respondent M/s Rajdhani Properties to pay
Rs.50,000/- to the claimant Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh.
Ayodhya Prasad alongwith Rs. 15,000/-
compensation to claimant by way of Demand Draft
within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing
which the same shall be recovered as per law.
Accordingly, all the issues are decided in the favour
of claimant, and against the
respondent/management."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not
appear before the learned Labour Commissioner because he fell ill. There is
nothing on record to show that he was so debilitated/incapacitated and that
he could not attend to the aforesaid case after he had filed the reply to the
claim. Furthermore, the petitioner is stated to be in the business of real
estate. It is not shown that he was carrying out any business thereafter or
there was no earnings, etc. from the said business.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
claimant was an employee of M/s. Dinesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. and he had been
paid Rs. 20,000/- as full and final payment. Therefore, there was no claim
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
Signing Date:28.02.2020
13:04:53
against the petitioner. This issue has been dealt with by the order of the
learned Labour Commissioner on 26.07.2019, which read as under:-
"No.SE/238/WD/15/
Sh. Vijay Kumar Vs. M/s Rajdhani Properties.
Respondent Management filled (sic) application on
08.06.2017 before this authority to recall order dated
01.06.2017 of this authority. Respondent management has
taken similar ground which he had taken in reply/letter
dated 27.04.2016 which facts was considered in order dated
01.06.2017 by the authority. No new facts has been mention
(sic) in application by the respondent for recalling the order
dated 01.06.2017. Claimant vide his reply dated 24.08.2017
filled in response to application of respondent wherein
claimant has denied all the contents of application. During
the proceeding respondent management filled letter dated
30.05.2016 of M/s Dinesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is
certify that Sh. Vijay Kumar claimant has worked as a
plumber on the site house no 40. Veena Enclave Delhi -
110018 on contract basis during the period from 15.08.2012
to 28.10.2012 of Dinesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. who paid amount
of Rs. 20,000/- as full and final payment. On the request of
respondent management summon dated 23.03.2018 by
speed post was sent to Dinesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. to appear
before this authority to certify contents of letter dated
30.05.2016 which pertain to Dinesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. Plot
No. 40, Meera Enclave, Chaukhandi, New Delhi- 110018
but on given date and time that is on 23.08.2018 at 10.00
A.M. no one appeared for Dinesh Builder as such summon
dated 11.07.2018 was against (sic) sent to M/s Dinesh
Builder Pvt. Ltd through SHO Tilak Nagar, Delhi and same
was served upon respondent as per report of SHO Tilak
Nagar dated 05.08.2018 but respondent management again
did not appear to certify the contents of letter dated
30.05.2016. In view of this respondent management failed to
prove contents of letter dated 30.05.2016 is not
considerable."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
Signing Date:28.02.2020
13:04:53
Further it is pertinent to mention in this order that the
defense/ reply letter dated 27.04.2016 filled by management
was considered before passing order dated 01.06.2017. In
present application dated filled (sic) on 08.06.2017 by
respondent is not maintainable as respondent could not
prove his case. Accordingly application filled (sic) on
08.06.0217 of respondent management is dismissed. Copy of
order be given to the parties."
4. What emanates from the above is that there is nothing on record to
show that the respondent-workman was employed with M/s. Dinesh Builder
Pvt. Ltd. The claim of the respondent-workman is that the petitioner did not
pay him his earned wages for the period 01.07.2012 to 30.12.2012. During
the proceedings before the learned Labour Commissioner, the management
had filed a letter of M/s. Dinesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. showing that the workman
had worked as plumber on site from 15.08.2012 to 28.10.2012, and he was
paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as full and final payment towards all his
claims. The latter payment was never proven. The workman had claimed
that he was working with M/s. Rajdhani Properties and he produced a photo
copy of his demand notice sent out initially. His claim was uncontested.
5. There is no cause for setting aside the impugned order. The petition is
without merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
6. The amounts deposited by the petitioner be released to the respondent
along with interest accrued thereon.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2020
kb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
Signing Date:28.02.2020
13:04:53
