Delhi High Court
Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan vs The General Secretary on 17 November, 2020
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.11.2020
+ CM(M) 511/2020
KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAWAN ..... Petitioner
versus
THE GENERAL SECRETARY ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM(M) 511/2020 & CM APPL.26486/2020 (stay)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns order dated 12.03.2020, whereby, the
objections filed by the petitioner to the execution filed by the
respondent has been dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the executing court has erred in imposing costs on the petitioner. He
submits that the notice was issued to the petitioner on the execution
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:29.11.2020 18:06:21
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
petition inviting the petitioner to file objections inasmuch as the notice
stated that in case the petitioner desires, he may file a reply or
objection to the execution petition. It is contended that in these
circumstances, the objections were filed objecting to the award which
were ultimately dismissed by the impugned order imposing costs of
Rs.50,000/-.
4. The award in issue was published in favour of the respondents
on 05.11.2006. Petitioner impugned the award by filing a writ
petition before this Court being W.P.(C) 1443/2007, which was
dismissed by a judgment dated 09.07.2015. Respondent thereafter
impugned the said judgment before the Supreme Court by filing a
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31462/2015, which special leave to
appeal was dismissed on 27.11.2015.
5. Thereafter, respondent filed the subject execution petition
seeking execution of the award on which notice was issued to the
petitioner and the petitioner filed their objections.
6. Impugned order records that the only objection raised by the
petitioner was that the execution petition was time barred. The
executing court found that the award, which was published on
10.10.2006, had till date not been implemented and accordingly
petitioner had been successful in delaying the proceedings. The
workmen, who were entitled to the benefit of the Award, were
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:29.11.2020 18:06:21
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
deprived of the said benefit for over 14 years by the petitioner.
Consequently, the executing court imposed costs of Rs.50,000/-.
7. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the execution petition is beyond time.
8. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act to contend that the award is enforceable for
the period of one year. The only submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the award is to remain in operation
for the period of one year and would lose its enforceability in terms of
Section 19 (3).
9. Reliance is also placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on
the judgment of this Court in M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. vs. Labour
Officer & Anr. dated 28.09.2011 in Crl.M.C.4899-4901/2006.
10. Section 19(3) stipulates that the award shall remain in operation
for a period of one year. Section 19 does not stipulate that the award
would lose its enforceability after the expiry of the period of one year.
In case the Award is for payment of money, the same is executable
like a decree of a civil court. The limitation for execution of a decree
is 12 years as noticed by the executing court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any
provision/judgment which lays down that the award cannot be
executed after the expiry of one year.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:29.11.2020 18:06:21
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
12. Furthermore, it is expedient to note that the award which was
published in the year 2006 was impugned by the petitioner before this
Court as well as the Supreme Court and it was finally on 27.11.2015
that the special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The respondents workmen, who had been litigating for over 14 years
cannot be denied the benefit of the Award merely on the technical
ground as contended by the petitioner.
13. Judgment in M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (supra) also does not
further the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the issue in the said case
was not with regard to the execution of the award but it was with
regard to commencement of criminal proceedings for failure to
implement the award within the period of one year. Said Judgment is
clearly not applicable in the facts of the present case.
14. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the view taken by
the Trial Court and accordingly, no ground is made out for interfering
with the impugned order.
15. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
computation of the claim has not yet been done by the executing court
even though computation has been filed by the petitioner.
17. It is implicit in Order 21 CPC that the executing court prior to
executing the award would do the computations and thereafter would
arrive at a figure which is payable under the award.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:29.11.2020 18:06:21
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
18. No further orders are called for on the said aspect.
19. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the High Court website
and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.
NOVEMBER 17, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:29.11.2020 18:06:21
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
