Brahma Nand v. Raman International

Delhi High Court · 17 Aug 2011 · 2011:DHC:18068
S. Muralidhar
W.P. (C) 2656/2011
2011:DHC:18068
labor appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court set aside perverse Industrial Tribunal awards and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication, directing fresh service of notice on the respondent company at its new address.

Full Text
Translation output
~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P. (C) 2656/2011
BRAHMA NAND ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose with Mohd. Faruk, Advocates
VERSUS
RAMAN INTERNATIONAL
Through None.
With ..... Respondent / W.P. (C) 2657/2011 ~· +
MAHESH SINGH ..... Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
SUNITA
WITH
W.P. (C) 2658/2011
VERSUS
..... Petitioner Advocates I' W.P. (C) 265612011 page no 116
2011:DHC:18068 ---------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-
WITH
W.P. (C) 2659/2011
MAYADEVI ..... Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
WITH
W.P. (C) 2660/2011
:46 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
WITH
W.P. (C) 2661/2011
MOHD. RAFIQ . ..... Petitioner : W.P. (C) 2656/2011
Advocates
VERSUS
page no 216 L( o/o
Through None
WITH
W.P. (C) 2662/2011
ALKA ..... Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
And
W.P. (C) 2663/2011
DINESH CHANDER SHARMA ..... Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
17.08.2011 ~
ORDER

1. An affidavit of dasti notice has been filed by Mr. Babu Ram, clerk of learned counsel for the Petitioner. He states therein that he along with W.P. (C) 265612011 pagenoJ/6 a process server of this Court reached the last knmvn address of Respondent M/s. Raman International at E-2/77-78, Sita Puri, Janakpuri, Delhi on 25th July 2011. Initially one Mr. Satyan who was present there confirmed that the Respondent company was operating from the said premises but later on instructions from someone over telephone refused to accept dasti notice on 25th July 2011. He infonned that the office was of one Dynamic Firm and not ofM/s. Raman International. The process server visited the other address of Respondent company, i.e., T-1/88, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-!, Delhi - 110 083 on 1st August 2011. The guard at the premises informed the process server that it was the office ofM/s. Sohan Global.

2. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that the address given for the Respondent in the Industrial Tribunal ('Tribunal') was at T-1/88, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-!, Delhi- 110 083 but clearly the Respondent company has shifted from there to the Janakpuri address.

3. On a perusal of affidavit of last service, this Court is satisfied that the Respondent refused to accept notice ofthe writ petition when sought to be W.P. (C) 265612011 page 110 416 ~ served at E-2/77-78, Sita Puri, Janakpuri, Delhi. The Respondent should be presumed to having been served. None has appeared today on behalf ofthe Respondents.

4. In its order dated 2t11 April2011 this Court while directing notice to issue noted that the impugned Awards prima facie appeared to be perverse and without application of mind and that, the matters required to be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication.

5. Accordingly, the impugned Awards are hereby set aside. The respective reference in each petition is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The respective references will now be restored to files of the Tribunal and will be listed for directions on 26th ' September 2011. The Tribunal is directed to once again issue fresh notice to the Respondent management at E-2/77-78, Sita Puri, Janakpuri, Delhi through its authorized representative. ·• 6. The writ petitions are disposed ofin the above terms. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the Petitioners. W.P. (C) 26561201I page no 5/6

7. A certified copy of this order be delivered to the concerned Tribunal:within three days from today.

S. MURALIDHAR, J page no 616 ·~