Delhi High Court
Viba Press Pvt Ltd vs Ravinder Yadav on 15 September, 2020
Digitally Signed By:SINDHU
KRISHNAKUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:35:26
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th September, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 9271/2019, CM APPLs. 45075/2019, 52307/2019 &
3254/2020
VIBA PRESS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Krishna Chandra Dubey,
Advocate. (M:9810445502)
versus
RAVINDER YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
(M:8851145382)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned Award dated 22nd
September, 2018 and the consequential orders of 12th November, 2018 and
19th November, 2018, passed by the ld. ADJ, Presiding Officer (Labour
Court-V), Dwarka Courts. The case of the Petitioner is that the
Respondent/Workman had initially raised an industrial dispute in 2011,
which was dismissed due to non-compliance with section 2A of the
Industrial Disputes (hereinafter, "ID") Act, 1947. Thereafter, he had raised
another industrial dispute, by filing a statement of claim dated 18th January
2016. The Management's Authorised Representative (hereinafter, "AR")
filed its written statement on 29th August, 2017.
3. The matter was listed from time to time before the Labour Court.
According to the ld. counsel for the Petitioner, unfortunately on 25th April
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:16
Digitally Signed By:SINDHU
KRISHNAKUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:35:26
2018, the AR for the Petitioner had noted the next date of hearing as 27th
September, 2018, instead of 7th September, 2018, and therefore he did not
appear for tendering of his evidence. Since he could not appear, the
examination-in-chief of the workman was tendered, the cross-examination
was treated as nil and the defence was also struck off - all on one day. The
case was then listed for arguments on 22nd September 2018 and the
impugned award came to be passed on the same day by the Labour Court.
As per the said Award, the Labour Court has held that the
Respondent/Workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back
wages.
4. The submission of Mr. K.C. Dubey, ld. counsel for the Petitioner is
that the matter was not heard on merits at all and the only reason why all the
issues have been decided against the Management is because no evidence
was led on their behalf. Since the absence of the AR was only for one date
during the proceedings, it is submitted that the Petitioner had moved an
application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. However vide order dated
12th November, 2018, the Petitioner was directed to deposit the entire
amount with the Court within one week, prior to the issuance of notice in the
application. On 19th November, 2018, since there was no deposit made by
the Petitioner, the application was dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. Heard. A perusal of the orders passed by this Court shows that,
initially there was no stay order, which was granted. Vide order dated 14th
October 2019, this Court had directed that the awarded amount should be
deposited within six weeks, subject to which the impugned award shall
remained stayed.
6. The Petitioner had thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 4,19,000/- with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:16
Digitally Signed By:SINDHU
KRISHNAKUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:35:26
the Registrar General of this Court. However, the workman submitted that
the total awarded amount was more than Rs.12,00,000/-. Accordingly, the
Petitioner was directed to place a calculation chart on record vide order
dated 13th January, 2020. The said order reads as under:
"....
2. As the writ petition is already listed for hearing
on 05.03.2020, after some arguments, learned
counsel for the applicant does not press the
present application, but points out that the
petitioner has still not deposited the amount in
terms of this Court's order dated 14.10.2019
despite repeated opportunities given by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who appears
on advance notice prays for and is granted three
days further time to deposit the awarded amount
along with the calculation chart. It is made clear
that, in case, the amount as directed is not
deposited by the petitioner within the next three
days, the interim order dated 14.10.2019 shall
automatically stand vacated and it will be open for
the respondent to seek for execution of the award.
4. The application stands disposed of."
7. The Respondent/Workman then moved an application, being CM
APPL. 3254/2020 for release of the amount, on the ground that his
daughter's marriage is to be fixed.
8. A perusal of the record in this case shows that there has been a default
of non-appearance by the Petitioner on one date, and thereafter non-deposit,
as per the order dated 12th November, 2018. Even before this Court, there is
a dispute as to the awarded amount as per the Labour Court's order.
9. The claim of the workman initially is that the awarded amount is over
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:16
Digitally Signed By:SINDHU
KRISHNAKUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:35:26
Rs. 12,00,000/- and at a later stage it was submitted that the awarded amount
is in the range of Rs.16,00,000/-. However, a deposit of Rs.4,19,000/- has
been made with this Court, by the Petitioner.
10. The impugned award having been made ex parte and the Management
not having had an opportunity to put-forth its case, this court is of the
opinion that one day's absence cannot put the management to such
detriment. It deserves an adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the following
directions are issued:
i) From the amount deposited by the Petitioner with the
Court, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be released to the Workman,
within a period of two weeks by the Registry. The remaining
amount shall be released back to the Management, along with the
interest accrued thereupon (after deducting the TDS). The release
of this amount is subject to the condition that if the labour court
holds in favour of the Management, the amount would be liable to
be refunded within four weeks from the date of passing of the
order of the Labour Court.
ii) The Presiding Officer (Labour Court) (hereinafter 'PO-
LC') shall hear the matter afresh, after providing an opportunity to
the Petitioner/Management to lead evidence. The evidence shall
be led within a time period, which may be prescribed by the PO-
LC.
iii) After the evidence is led by the Management, and the
matter is heard afresh, the petition shall be decided on merits by
the PO-LC.
iv) At the time of passing of the final order, if the dispute is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:16
Digitally Signed By:SINDHU
KRISHNAKUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:35:26
decided in favour of the workman, the PO-LC shall also
specifically compute the amounts, if any, which may be held to be
payable to the Workman, so that there is no dispute in the future
with respect to the amount, as is being raised in the present
petition.
v) If the Labour Court holds that no amount is payable, then
the Workman would be liable to repay the amount to the tune of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the Management, within a period of four weeks
after passing of that order. However, on the other hand, if it is held
by the Labour Court that the Workman is entitled to a larger
amount, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- already paid, shall be
adjusted.
11. With these observations, the present petition and all pending
applications are disposed of.
12. List before the Presiding Officer (Labour Court-V), Dwarka Courts on
16th October, 2020. Copy of the order be communicated to the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court V, Dwarka, by the Registrar (Appellate) of this Court.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
dj/Ak
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.09.2020 22:16
