Ridge View Service Station v. Sadanand

1. The present batch of writ petitions have been preferred by the same management M/s. Ridge View Service Station to assail the awards rendered by the same Labour Court IX, Karkardoorna Courts, East District, I)elhi in direct petitions preferred by the respective respondents under section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the details whereof are mentioned herein above.

2. The Labour Court has allowed the said petitions and directed reinstatement of the respondents in service with full back wages with effect from 03.03.2006 onwards.

3. The case of the respondents/workmen is similar - that they were working with the petitioner management as helpers/salesmen on the W.P.(C) 570412011& oilier connected matters petitioners petrol station. The case of the respondents was that their services were suddenly terminated without holding an enquiry and without complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Act.

4. The petitioner was served in each of these cases before the Labour Court. Despite service, the petitioner did not appear to contest the proceedings. The evidence of each of the respondents was recorded ex-parte and, on that basis, the impugned awards have been passed.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had engaged one advocate Ms. Rashmit Kaur Charya, to appear and represent the petitioners case in. all the direct petitions. According to the petitioner, the said advocate assured the petitioner that she would take appropriate care of the matters, and that the petitioner would not have to appear personally. According to the petitioner, the said advocate intormeci the petitioner that the petitioner did not have to take any steps and she is taking care of all the cases. It is further stated that in January 2008, they were informed by the said advocate that the cases had been decided in their favour. It is claimed that they came to know about the impugned awards only when they received the letters from the Deputy Labour Commissioner regarding recovery of the awarded amounts.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners were duly served in the proceedings before the Labour Court, but they failed to appear. The story set up the petitioner to explain their non appearance is wholly unbelievable, it is not explained as to what steps were taken by the petitioner since the alleged engagement of the said counsel Rashmit Kaur Charya. It is not disclosed whether and, if so, H IV P. ('C) 570412011& oilier coi,nected,,,atters Page 4 o1'6 how much fees was paid to the said counsel, and the manner of payment of the said fees for engaging her has not been disclosed, it is unbelievable that the petitioner would have remained silent throughout only because of the counsel allegedly informing the petitioner that they need not follow up the case. They would have, at least, been aware that they would have to contest the proceedings by filing their written statement/defence which was never filed. It is not their case that the written statement was ever prepared, or that their signatures obtained thereon or on the vakalatnama.

7. Pertinently, the petitioner has taken no action against the said advocate before the Bar Council for the alleged acts and omissions of the said counsel which clearly would tantamount to professional misconduct, if there were any truth in the same.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the justification offered by the petitioner to explain its non appearance before the Labour Court is rejected. The nonappearance of the petitioner before the Labour Court was at their own peril and they must take the consequences.

9. Even otherwise, I find no merit in the present petitions, as the impugned awards appear to be perfectly legal and do not call for any interference insofar as the finding regarding the termination being illegal is concerned.

10. Pertinently, it is the case of the petitioner that it has complied with the impugned award by reinstating the respondent workmen. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after being reinstated, the respondents have not reported for work. This is vehemently denied by the respondents, JV P. (C) 570412011 & oilier co,,necfed iziallers Page 5 of'6 -4 who state that they have not been reinstated in service.

11. No payments have been made to the respondents after their alleged reinstatement for the work that they may have done. No action appears to have been taken against them for not reporting for work. There are allegations and counter-allegations in this regard.

12. From the aforesaid, it appears that the relationship between the parties has soured, and there is no point in directing the respondents reinstatement in service in these circumstances. Instead, the award of adequate compensation to each of the respondents would meet the ends of justice.

13. Taking into account the last drawn wages of each of the respondents which were in the range of Rs.3,000!- per month at the time of their illegal retrenchment in the year 2006; the fact that the impugned awards were rendered in the year 2009, and; the fact that full back wages were awarded to the respondents, in my view, the ends of justice would be met if the 4 petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.[2] lacs to each of the respondents in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The said compensation shall be paid by the petitioner Within four weeks, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date hereof till realisation.

14. Petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms,fr V1PIN SANGI!!, J MAY 31, 2013 sr O WI'.(C) 570412011& oilier connected in / c[1] Puge 6 of 6