Delhi High Court
Hst Enterprises vs Sunil & Anr on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5090/2025, CM APPL. 23318/2025
HST ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Advocate.
Versus
SUNIL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner/management No. 2 seeks to
assail the impugned Award dated 30.11.2023 vide which the Labour Court
returned a finding that services of respondent No.1 were terminated illegally
and unjustifiably by the management on 30.11.2016. Further, in lieu of the
reinstatement, a compensation of Rs.75,000/- was granted to the
workman/respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.
2. The facts, as gathered from the records, are that the
workman/respondent No.1 in his statement of claim, had claimed that he
was employed as Electrician (Helper). It was further claimed that though
initially he was employed with petitioner/management No.2 whereafter he
was deployed with respondent No.2/management No.1 since April, 2014
and his last drawn salary was Rs.8,252/- per month. It was further claimed
that the workman/respondent No.1 was working under the direct supervision
and control of both the managements out of whom respondent No.2
/management No.1 was the principal employer. When the
workman/respondent No.1 asked for legal benefits including the issuance of
appointment letter, attendance card, pay slip, leave book etc.,
petitioner/management No.2 terminated his services on 30.11.2016. It was
also claimed that the petitioner/management No.2 also did not pay the wages
for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2016 to 29.11.2016. On being served, while
respondent No.2/management No.1 chose not to appear and was proceeded
ex-parte vide order dated 23.03.2019, the petitioner/management No.2 filed
its written statement and admitted to the employment of
workman/respondent No.1 from 01.05.2015 to 13.06.2016. It was stated that
the workman/respondent No.1 was thereafter employed with a different
management. As the agreement period had also expired, the
petitioner/management No.2 also offered a job at the different location
which was also denied by the workman/respondent No.1. Considering the
pleadings following issues were framed by the Labour Court :-
(1) Whether the claimant had worked with the management w.e.f April, 2014 to
30.11.2016 or workman worked with the management for 240 days continuously prior to
the termination of his services on dated 30.11.2016? OPW
(2) Whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the
management? OPW
(3) Whether the workman had left the job of his own? OPM
(4) Relief.
3. The workman/respondent No.1 filed its evidence by way affidavit and
reiterated the contents of the statement of claims. The demand notice was
exhibited as Ex. WW1/1. Despite opportunities, the petitioner/management
No.2 failed to cross-examine the workman/respondent No.1 and eventually
their right to cross-examine was closed. Later, an application came to be
filed on behalf of petitioner/management No.2 seeking recall of the order
which was allowed and further opportunity was granted.
Petitioner/management No.2 however again failed to cross-examine the
workman/respondent No.1 resulting into closure of their right to cross-
examine vide order dated 03.10.2023. Petitioner/management No.2 also
failed to file any affidavit of evidence. In fact, none appeared for the
management and eventually their evidence was closed on 24.11.2023. The
Labour Court, while considering the issues came to the conclusion that the
workman/respondent No.1 worked with the management for about two and
half years. Petitioner/management No.2 failed to place on record any notice
or notice pay, prior to termination of services. Apparently, the version of
workman/respondent No.1 remained unrebutted. The Issue No. 3 was
decided against the management as no evidence was led for the same.
Consequently, noting the fact that the alleged termination took place on
30.11.2016, the labour Court came to the conclusion that instead of directing
for reinstatement, lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest
@ 9% would be justified.
4. In the present challenge, the petitioner/management No.2 has failed to
point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Petitioner/management No.2 failed to put any material on record before the
Labour Court and despite multiple opportunities they did not avail their right
to cross-examine or lead its own evidence. Finding no merits in the present
petition, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
MAY 22, 2025
ga
