Delhi High Court
Shiv Shakti Tractor Corpn vs Shri Ram Sharma on 26 March, 2021
$~12-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 132/2021 & CM APPL. 12013/2021 (for stay) & CM APPL.
12015/2021 (for delay of 386 days in filing)
SHIV SHAKTI TRACTOR CORPN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vivek Tandon with Mr. Ankit
Dwivedi, Advocates.
versus
BABLOO YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: None.
AND
+ LPA 133/2021 & CM APPL. 12041/2021(for stay) & CM APPL.
12043/2021 (for delay of 365 days in filing)
SHIV SHAKTI TRACTOR CORPN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vivek Tandon with Mr. Ankit
Dwivedi, Advocates.
versus
RAM SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 26.03.2021
CM APPLs. 12014/2021 & 12042/2021 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
LPA 132/2021 & LPA 133/2021
3. These two appeals though arise from separate judgments in separate
LPA 132/2021 and connected matter page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
10:50:09
writ petitions filed by the appellant impugning separate awards of the
Industrial Court in dispute separately raised by the respondent/workman in
each of the appeals but the employer, that is the appellant, is the same and
the counsel for the appellant states that the incident which led to the
industrial dispute raised by respondent/workman in each of the appeals is
also the same.
4. The claim of the respondent/workman in each of the appeals, before
the Industrial Court was, (a) that the appellant employer had been taking
work, without providing the facilities which the employer was obliged to
provide; (b) when the respondent/workman demanded/complained, the
employer started harassing and stopped the respondent/workmen from
joining duty, took the signatures of respondent/workmen on blank paper and
threatened to implicate them in a false theft case and lodged a report of theft
with Police. On the said pleas, relief of reinstatement was claimed by each
respondent/workman. On the contrary it was the case of appellant employer
before the Industrial Court that the respondent/workmen, when confronted
with theft, abandoned their employment and the services of
respondent/workmen were terminated after proper inquiry but the
respondent/workmen refused to participate in the inquiry and the complaint
of theft was correct. Vide the awards impugned in the writ petitions from
which these appeals arise, though the relief of reinstatement claimed by
respondent/workman in each of the appeals was denied but lump-sum
compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the respondent/workman in LPA 132/2021
and of Rs. 6 lacs to the respondent/workman in LPA 133/2021, was
awarded. The challenge before the Single Judge having not succeeded, these
LPA 132/2021 and connected matter page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
10:50:09
appeals have been preferred but with the applications for condonation of
delay of 386 days and 365 days respectively in filing the appeals.
5. The cause pleaded for the delay is, owing to prevalent COVID-19
pandemic.
6. We have however asked the counsel for the appellant, whether not
notwithstanding the pandemic, the courts have been functioning since April,
2020 and to which the counsel for the appellant fairly agrees.
7. Though there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay, particularly
when the monetary awards in favour of the workmen have been upheld, but
we have still, to satisfy our conscience, heard counsel for the appellant on
merits.
8. It is the case of the appellant, that the respondent/workmen, when
faced with the detection of theft committed by them in the shop of the
appellant, stopped coming for work and abandoned their employment;
however the appellant nevertheless conducted an inquiry on the charge of
theft against the respondent/workmen and terminated their services.
9. The Industrial Court, inter alia reasoning that the Inquiry Officer
appointed was/is the brother of the Manager of the appellant and that even
the existence in the shop of the goods, of theft whereof the
respondent/workmen were charged, had not been proved, held the inquiry to
be vitiated. The Industrial Court further held that the appellant employer had
failed to prove the charge of theft before the Industrial Court also and thus
the appellant employer had illegally terminated the contracted employment
of respondent/workmen.
10. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the Inquiry Officer
LPA 132/2021 and connected matter page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
10:50:09
was not the real brother but the maternal brother of the Manager of the
appellant.
11. The same would however be immaterial in as much as once it is found
that the Inquiry Officer was not impartial but was related to the employer,
inquiry becomes suspect. Moreover, we have asked the counsel for the
appellant, that if it is the case of the appellant that the respondent/workmen
had abandoned their service, why was the inquiry on the charge of
abandonment not conducted and inquiry conducted only on the charge of
theft. We have further asked the counsel for the appellant that if it was the
case of the appellant that the respondent/workmen had abandoned their
employment, why did the appellant not call upon them to rejoin the service
or present such an offer in conciliation proceedings or before the
Industrial/Labour Court.
12. All the aforesaid facts show that appellant terminated the services of
the respondent/workmen without following the procedure prescribed by law
and once it is so, we, in exercise of Letters Patent jurisdiction, would be
loath to interfere with the monetary award of lump-sum compensation in the
sums of Rs. 4lacs and 6lacs respectively and which amounts cannot not be
said to be shockingly disproportionate.
13. The counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to para 8 of
the order impugned in LPA 133/2021 and has contended that the
computation made by the Single Judge therein is contrary to the facts; the
Single Judge has computed the amounts which would have been payable to
the respondent/workman therein with effect from the year 1986 when it was
LPA 132/2021 and connected matter page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
10:50:09
not the case of the respondent/workman therein that awards had not been
paid since then.
14. Even if the said reasoning given by the Single Judge were to be
ignored, the remaining order as well as the record do not permit us to differ
from opinion aforesaid.
15. There is no merit in the appeals.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
MARCH 26, 2021/sr
LPA 132/2021 and connected matter page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
10:50:09
