Full Text
* IN TIIE IIIGH COI]RT OF' DELHI At NEW DELHI
#7
+ W. P. (C) 41912011 and CM APPL 16905/2011 (for directions)
RAMESH PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: N,{r. S. Shahi, Advocate.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jitender Vashisht, Advocate for
R-2.
#8
+
MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: M. S.- Shahi, Advocate.
VETSUS
Govr. op rrrcr oF DELHI AND oRS ..... Respondents
' R-2.
#9
+ W. P. (C) 42112011 and CM APPL 1.6908/2011 (for directions)
AMIRU m, , r- .....Petitioner
Ihrough: \4r. S. Shahi, Advocate.
VCTSUS
Govr' oF NCr
"Ti.tffi "ffi.:ff der vashiil, ff;:f,l"il;
R-2.
#10
+ w. P. (C) 42212011 and CM APPL 16907/2011 (for directions)
'r
W. P. (C).No.419/2011 & Batclt poge I of g
2011:DHC:15962
GOVIND YADAV
Through: ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Shahi, Advocate. o
R-2.
3Oth August 2010 passed by the Labour Court in I. D. No.272 of 2005. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has rejected the claim of the
Petitioners workmen that their services were illegally terminated by the
Respondent management.
ORDER
2. The case of the Petitioners is that each of them was employed with the Respondent IWs Sanjay Industries since 20'h February 1993. It is stated that after 31't August 2004, their services were terminated without any notice and they were also not paid salaries for the month of August2004. After failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in I. D. No.272 of 2005.
3. The case of the Respondent management was that due to financial crises, it was decided to close down the factory in June 2004. A notice
4. Before the Labour Court, the workmen filed the reports of the LI dated 29th September 2004 and 4th October 2004. The workmen were also crossexamined by the authorized representative for the management. The proprietor of the Respondent management filed his affidavit by way of' evidence and was also cross-examined.
5. By the impugned Award dated 30fr August2004,the Labour Court held that the management had been able to prove that it had closed the business on 3ll'-August 2004. It was held that the workmen were unable to show that their services were terminated illegally.
6. Xdr. S. Shahi, learned counsel
141. P. (C) No.419/2011 & Batch appearing for the Petitioners urged that Poge 3 of I "t-\'I j /r t, the Labour Court omitted to refer to the report dated 4th October 2004.of the LI which was exhibited as Ex. WWlAvI[3] and which showed that even as on that date, there were 15 persons who were working in the unit. He referred to the applications, i.e., CM APPL Nos. 16905-08 of 2011 and prayed that either the workmen should be permitted to summon the LI at this stage in these proceedings for recording their evidence on the report dated 4th Octob er 2004 or that the impugned Award should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh trial in accordance with law.
7. Mr. Jitender Vashisht, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, referred to the pleadings as well as the depositions of the witnesses. He pointed out that the workmen had not proved the report of the LI in accordance with law by examining the LI. No question was put to the proprietor of the management as regards the closure of the business.
8. This Court has examined the documents, the depositions as well as the impugned Award of the Labour Court. The first report of the LI dated 29th September 2004 has been referred to in the impugned Award.. However, that report neither supports the management nor the workmen. It simply sets out the contention of the workmen that the unit was not closed down and the reply filed by the management stating that it had indeed been
It "i I closed down. There was no opinion whatsoever expressed in the said report. In any event, the said report was not proved in accordance with law although it was exhibited as a document. g. As regards the report dated 14ft October2004, it does state that as on that date there were 15 workers found working at ihe site but the proprietor was not present. Although this document was exhibited as Ex. WWlll|ld[6], the workmen did not apply to the Labour Court to summon the LI who prepared that report. In the cross-examination of the proprietor, not a single question was put to him about the closure.
10. At this juncture, the relevant portion of the affrdavit of the proprietor of the management as regards the closure may be referred to. It reads as under:-
9. That the Notice dated 10.8.2004 was placed on the \,Y. P. (C) No. 419/201I & Batch Page 5 of I t) notice board declaring that the industry is going to be closed on 3I.8.2004 and all the concerned workmen may take their respective amount from the Managemnt on 3I.8.2004 itself. The Notice is already Ex. ww4a42.
10. That the Labour Inspector had visited the premises and given his report dated 2g.g.2004 and the Management had given in writing to the Labour Inspector - Shri Ilahi that the management had closed down its business and ready to pay the legal dues to the workmen and same is intimated to the Union's representing workmen vide letter dated 29.9.2004 and same is Ex. WW1/7.
11. That during the service of workmen the bonus and wages were duly paid. The last salaries of the workmen were sent by registered letters and Shri Lottu Chauhan - workman had received the cheque and encashed the same. The other letters were returned back. Th[9] bonus register showing the payment of bonus and wages register showing the wages to the workmen employed by the industry are already Ex. WW1A42 and Ex. WW4A{3.
12. That the Management had closed down its business on 31.8.2004. The Management had also surrendered the telephone connection installed in the premises in the aame of the Deponent. Copy of the same is beard
11. In the cross-examination of the proprietor by the workmen, there was no question put to him to suggest that'the. factory in question was not closed down on 31'! August 2004. He was also not asked any question on the basis of the repgrt dated 4th Octob er 2004 of the LI. It appears that the workmen themselves therefore, did not place any reliance on the report dated 4th Octob er 2004 of the LI. That being the position, the Labour Court correctly concluded that the management had been able to successfully prove that the unit was indeed closed down on 31't August
2004. This Court is not inclined at the present stage to have the entire matter reopened to permit the workmen to now summon the T..I about the report dated 4fr Octob er 2004. There was sufficient opportunity to the workmen to do so before the Labour Court and for reasons best known to them, they failed to do so. They do not appear to have placed any reliance of the said document. This Court is, therefore, not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that merely because the said document was marked as an exhibit, it should have been discussed by the Labour Court. The document had to be duly proved in accordance with law, which it was not. It was also not used to confront the witness for the management on the aspect of closure.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no elror in the impugned Award of the Labour Court which calls for interference. The writ petitions and the applications are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.
S. MT]RALIDHAR, J ocroBER L[4],20ll fia