MEC Electric Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v. The National Territory of Delhi

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

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL) *

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 22.01.2001 passed by the Labour Court whereby the respondent 2010:DHC:502 workman was directed to be reinstated along with 50% back wages.

2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the respondent/workman was employed by the petitioner as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs.1000/-. The services of respondent workman were terminated and he raised an industrial dispute where the stand taken by the petitioner was that there existed no relationship of an employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent workman. The Labour Court vide order dated 22.1.2001 directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Sanjay, counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner i.e. MEC Electric Contracts Pvt. Ltd. was never the employer of the respondent workman and even as per the own case of the respondent/workman, he was employed with M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Private Ltd. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a private limited company and was registered with the Registrar of Companies on 18.07.1989 and the receipts issued by the respondent workman himself were executed by him acknowledging the receipt of salary or other payments from one Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, of whom the respondent was in personal employment. Counsel further submits that even the award is not enforceable against the petitioner under Section 33 (C ) of the I.D. Act after the expiry of one year period. Counsel further submits that even no notice of recovery was issued. Counsel further submits that even the respondent/workman had failed to prove that he had worked for a period 240 days which is the mandatory requirement to get the benefit of Section

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records.

5. The case set up by the respondent/workman was that he was earlier employed by M/s MAC Engineers, D-61, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-7 on 19.05.1987 on the post of driver on a monthly salary of Rs.1000/-. He was further informed that the name of the said firm was changed to M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. from M/s MAC Engineers. He has also stated that his salary was being paid by the earlier employer M/s MAC Engineers or by M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that his salary was not paid for the months of December, 1988, February, 1989 and for 12 days of September, 1989. The workman sent a notice of demand to M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. and in the previous claim i.e. I.D. NO. 491/1990 he had impleaded M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. as a respondent but the said reference was withdrawn by him as he wanted to implead M/s MAC Engineers as well. Both the managements i.e. M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MAC Engineers filed their respective written statements and contested the claim of the workman. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the respondent at the most was in the personal employment of Mr. Anil Bhardwaj and not of the company. However, it was not denied that Mr. Anil Bhardwaj was the Director of the petitioner company. No such plea was taken by Mr. Anil Bhardwaj claiming personal employment of the respondent/workman when the written statement was filed earlier in I.D. No. 491/1990. One of the witness produced by the management i.e. Mahinder Singh admitted the fact that the business was being run in the name and style of M/s MAC Engineers in the year 1989 and the same was later incorporated as M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Private Limited Company on 18.07.1989. The said witness also admitted the signatures of the respondent workman on the attendance register of the petitioner company. In the face of such admitted facts the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was not in its employment is palpably false. The petitioner is just trying to take advantage of the fact that before the Labour Court the name of the petitioner company was mentioned as M/s MAC Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd. instead of M/s MEC Electric Contracts Pvt. Ltd. and hence the plea of the petitioner appears to be dishonest.

6. So far the other contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the recovery has not been sought by the respondent within the period of one year as laid down under section 33 (C ) of the I.D. Act, I do not find anywhere the the petitioner has taken such a plea that as to when and on what date the respondent/workman had approached the appropriate Government to enforce the said award. I do not find any merit in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.

7. Hence in the light of the above, I find the petition devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

JANUARY 28, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR,J pkv