Krishna Devi & Anr. v. Amir Singh & Anr.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No

JUDGMENT

03.08.2011

1. The challenge in this petition is to an Award dated 28th July 2000 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 694 of 1988 holding the termination of the services of Respondent No. 1 to be illegal and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and 40% of back wages.

2. Petitioner No. 1 states that she is the last surviving partner of Petitioner No. 2 firm which stood dissolved in April 1996 with the death of one of its partners, Mr. Bhagwan Dass. It is claimed that learned counsel appearing for the management had expired during the proceedings before the Labour Court and therefore, the partners of the firm were unaware of the further hearing of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Petitioner came to know of the ex parte order passed by the Labour Court 2011:DHC:3886 only in February 2003. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to the workman prior to the filing of the present petition in the enforcement proceedings. The Award dated 28th July 2000 was published on 10th May 2011.

3. While directing notice to issue in this petition on 11th March 2005 this Court stayed coercive proceedings against the Petitioner for the recovery of the balance amount and also required the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses of the Respondent.

4. On merits, it is submitted that the Respondent was admittedly terminated from service during the period of probation on account of not being able to perform his duty up to the mark. It is pointed out that the Respondent workman had failed to produce any document to show that he was working with M/s. Globe Engineering Company since 1975 or with M/s. Geeco Engineering Company or that both firms were part of the same establishment. It is contended that in fact they were different firms with different partners, with separate sales tax, provident fund and ESI numbers.

5. The impugned Award of the Labour Court shows that the workman examined himself as WW-1. He denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that he was employed only on 2nd September 1997. He was able to produce a number of documents which showed that he was employed prior to that date. The other two workman’s witnesses, i.e., Kishan Lal (WW-2) and Pishore Lal (WW-3) supported the workman’s case that he was appointed in 1975 and that both firms were operating from the same premises.

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court concluded that termination of the workman’s service amounted to retrenchment and further that there was no compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. Having examined the impugned Award of the Labour Court and the evidence led before it, this Court is satisfied that there are no grounds for interference. This Court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the Petitioner for the management not participating in the proceedings before the Labour Court after a stage. Further, the present petition was filed nearly five years after the Award. In the circumstances, remanding the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh trial does not appear to be justified. On merits too, the findings of the Labour Court, based on a correct appreciation of the evidence, do not call for interference.

8. Consequently, the writ petition and the pending application are dismissed. The interim order dated 11th March 2005 stands vacated.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

AUGUST 3, 2011 rk