Delhi High Court
M/S A.P.Apparels vs The Labour Commissioner & Ors on 23 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 15801/2023, CM APPL. 63583/2023
M/S A.P.APPARELS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneesh Bahri, Advocate.
versus
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shikha and Mr. Tarun Kumar,
Advocates for R-3 alongwith R-3 in
person.
+ W.P.(C) 16239/2023, CM APPL. 65320/2023
M/S A.P.APPARELS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneesh Bahri, Advocate.
versus
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shikha and Mr. Tarun Kumar,
Advocates for R-3 alongwith R-3 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By way of above-noted petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned
awards dated 05.09.2019 passed in ID No. 9750/2016 and 9751/2016
respectively.
2. Since both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner against
the respondents/workmen who claim themselves to be their employees and
further in view of the common submissions having been addressed, both the
petitions are taken up for consideration and disposed of by this common
judgment.
3. Upon claims being raised by the workmen, namely Indal Kumar
Betha and Sanjay Chauhan, being respondents No.3 in both the petitions,
individual references were sent by the Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour
Department, West District, GNCTD.
4. On receipt of the references, notices were issued to the workmen after
which statement of claims came to be filed. In their respective claims, the
respondents No.3/workmen had claimed that their services were terminated
illegally and unjustifiably by the management. While the workman/Indal
Kumar Betha claimed employment with the petitioner since January 2001,
the other workman/Sanjay Chauhan claimed employment since January,
2010. Both the workmen claimed that they were employed at the post of
'Press Man' with a last drawn salary of Rs.14,000/-. They alleged that action
of termination was taken without issuance of prior notice. It was further
alleged that during their service tenure, the management did not provide
them with legal facilities like transfer letter, appointment letter, leave book,
wage slip, casual/annual leaves, bonus, overtime wages etc. and when the
same were demanded, their services were terminated by the management on
21.06.2016. It was further claimed that management did not provide their
wages from 01.05.2016 to 20.06.2016 in utter violation of provisions of
Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, the I.D. Act).
The workmen sent the demand notice through registered post which
remained unanswered. In both the references, the management was duly
served however, it chose not to appear and was eventually proceeded ex-
parte on 26.09.2017 in both the cases. Both the workmen examined
themselves and also filed their evidence by way of affidavits. As the
management failed to appear, the Labour Court considered the averments
and the evidence placed on record and returned a finding that services of
both the workmen were terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of
the I.D. Act. Labour Court, observing that considerable time had passed,
thought it fit to award compensation instead of reinstatement. Accordingly,
lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- was awarded to
the workmen i.e. Indal Kumar Betha and Sanjay Chauhan respectively in
lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other consequential benefits. The
Award also carried interest @ 9% from the date it becomes due till the time
it is realised.
5. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
petitioner was never summoned and one Mr. Mohd. Shoaib Alam whose
appearance was marked, was never authorised to appear on its behalf.
6. Pertinently, the present petition has been filed after nearly four years
of the passing of the impugned Awards. A perusal of the Labour Court
Record would show that process was issued on multiple occasions. The first
attempt of service was made on 22.02.2017 when the premises of the
petitioner was found locked. Another attempt was made on 02.05.2017 when
Process Server visited the premises of the petitioner at second floor, Jwala
Heri and met a person who did not identify himself and refused to take
summons. On 10.08.2017, Process Server again visited the premises of the
petitioner at second and third floor, Jwala Heri where he met one Mohd.
Shoaib Alam who identified himself as Supervisor. Process Server also
affixed copy of the summons on the property. On next date of hearing, i.e.
22.08.2017 though the Court was on leave however, it was recorded that
Mohd. Shoaib Alam appeared and an endorsement was made to the effect
that he had received the copy of the summons through post. The matter was
listed on the next date i.e. 26.09.2017, when none appeared for the petitioner
and the matter was proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner
tried to disassociate the management from Mohd. Shoaib Alam however, a
perusal of the writ petition would show that there are no pleadings on the
aforesaid aspect. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed
miserably in disassociating the management from Mohd. Shoaib Alam and
the same appears to be clearly an afterthought.
7. In light of the above, this Court concurs with the finding of the
Labour court that the petitioner failed to appear before it, despite being
served. The petitions do not raise any substantial ground and being
meritless, are dismissed alongwith pending applications.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
MAY 23, 2025
ga
