Full Text
Translation output
$'-'9to 13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 612/2015
MUKESH GUPTA Appellant Represented by: Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate
LPA 612/2015
MUKESH GUPTA Appellant Represented by: Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate
VERSUS
RAJ KUIMAR & ORS Respondents Represented by: None
LPA 613/2015
VERSUS
TOOFANI SAROJ & ORS Respondents
LPA 615/2015
.4 Represented by: Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate
.4 Represented by: Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate
VERSUS
SHYAM LAL & ORS Respondents
LPA 616/2015
VERSUS
LPA No.612/2015 & conn.matters Page 1of 4 2015:DHC:11282-DB
PANDU RAM & ORS Represented by:
PANDU RAM & ORS Represented by:
LPA 617/2015
MUKESH GUPTA
Represented by:
Respondents None Appellant Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate
MUKESH GUPTA
Represented by:
Respondents None Appellant Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate
VERSUS
ACHHE LAL & ORS Respondents Represented by None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
10.09.2015 CM No. 19034/2015 in LPA No.612/2015
CM No.19077/2015 in LPA No.613/2015 CM No.19099/2015 in LPA No.615/2015
CMNo.19105/2015 inLPANo.616/2015 CM No.19107/2015 in LPA No.617/2015
Allowed subject to jus exceptions.
LPANos.612/2015,613/2015, 615/2015, 616/2015 & 617/2015
The award in each case is in favour of the workman. The term of reference was "Whether the service of the workman has been terminated illegally and/or justflably by the management and i f so, to what relief is the workman entitled to".
All the workmen claimed to be the employees of the appellant. The record of the learned Labour Court would evince that after the pleadings were pleaded and stage reached for evidence to be led, in each reference the
LPA No.612/2015 & conn.matters workman examined himself and proved various documents. In his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief the workman deposed on oath that he was the employee of Mukesh Gupta Transport Company. Said testimony on oath was not even challenged because the representative of the management stopped appearing. The management did not lead any evidence in rebuttal.
The award directs reinstatement with 50% back wages.
The management has filed a writ petition laying a challenge to the award(s) in which it is not denied that the workman used to work at the railway sliding but it is pleaded that the workman was being paid wages for the work done. In other words what is sought to be pleaded in the writ petition is that as and when railway wagons carrying cement used to be stationed at the railway sliding for the purposes of unloading the wagons labour used to be employed and payment used to be made to the labour for each bag of cement unloaded. Suffice it to state that this aspect of the deployment of labour was not proved by the management by leading any evidence before the Labour Court.
Issue arises concerning impugned order whether the learned Single
Judge was justified in allowing the application filed by the workman under
Section 17-B. The impugned order would reveal that a correct principle of law has been applied by the learned Single Judge, being that, if it was prima facie evident that there was no employer-employee relationship the relief to a workman could be denied under Section 17-B of the ID Act. But, this would have to be on a very cursory reading of the evidence for the reason if from a cursory reading of the evidence it dawns ex-facie that the employer- employee relationship was not proved, wages as contemplated by Section
17-B of the ID Act could be denied.
In view of the facts herein noted above it is not in dispute that the management did not even challenge the testimony of the workman on oath that he was employed by the management coupled by the fact that the management led no evidence in rebuttal, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that relief to the workman have to be granted under
Section 17-B of the ID Act.
Appeals are dismissed in limine with the usual caveat. Nothing expressed in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the cases.
No costs.
CM No.19033/2015 in LPA No.612/2015 CM No. 19076/2015 in LPA No.613/2015
CM No.19098/2015 in LPA No.615/2015 CM No.19104/2015 in LPA No.616/2015
CM No.19106/2015 in LPA No.617/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NA)1MJOG, J. so MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 mamta
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
10.09.2015 CM No. 19034/2015 in LPA No.612/2015
CM No.19077/2015 in LPA No.613/2015 CM No.19099/2015 in LPA No.615/2015
CMNo.19105/2015 inLPANo.616/2015 CM No.19107/2015 in LPA No.617/2015
Allowed subject to jus exceptions.
LPANos.612/2015,613/2015, 615/2015, 616/2015 & 617/2015
The award in each case is in favour of the workman. The term of reference was "Whether the service of the workman has been terminated illegally and/or justflably by the management and i f so, to what relief is the workman entitled to".
All the workmen claimed to be the employees of the appellant. The record of the learned Labour Court would evince that after the pleadings were pleaded and stage reached for evidence to be led, in each reference the
LPA No.612/2015 & conn.matters workman examined himself and proved various documents. In his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief the workman deposed on oath that he was the employee of Mukesh Gupta Transport Company. Said testimony on oath was not even challenged because the representative of the management stopped appearing. The management did not lead any evidence in rebuttal.
The award directs reinstatement with 50% back wages.
The management has filed a writ petition laying a challenge to the award(s) in which it is not denied that the workman used to work at the railway sliding but it is pleaded that the workman was being paid wages for the work done. In other words what is sought to be pleaded in the writ petition is that as and when railway wagons carrying cement used to be stationed at the railway sliding for the purposes of unloading the wagons labour used to be employed and payment used to be made to the labour for each bag of cement unloaded. Suffice it to state that this aspect of the deployment of labour was not proved by the management by leading any evidence before the Labour Court.
Issue arises concerning impugned order whether the learned Single
Judge was justified in allowing the application filed by the workman under
Section 17-B. The impugned order would reveal that a correct principle of law has been applied by the learned Single Judge, being that, if it was prima facie evident that there was no employer-employee relationship the relief to a workman could be denied under Section 17-B of the ID Act. But, this would have to be on a very cursory reading of the evidence for the reason if from a cursory reading of the evidence it dawns ex-facie that the employer- employee relationship was not proved, wages as contemplated by Section
17-B of the ID Act could be denied.
In view of the facts herein noted above it is not in dispute that the management did not even challenge the testimony of the workman on oath that he was employed by the management coupled by the fact that the management led no evidence in rebuttal, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that relief to the workman have to be granted under
Section 17-B of the ID Act.
Appeals are dismissed in limine with the usual caveat. Nothing expressed in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the cases.
No costs.
CM No.19033/2015 in LPA No.612/2015 CM No. 19076/2015 in LPA No.613/2015
CM No.19098/2015 in LPA No.615/2015 CM No.19104/2015 in LPA No.616/2015
CM No.19106/2015 in LPA No.617/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NA)1MJOG, J. so MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 mamta
JUDGMENT