Full Text
W.P.(C.) No. 7319/2008
Date of Decision: 21st OCTOBER, 2009 # M/S SHUBHAM ENTERPRISES.....PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh, Advocate.
^ Through: Nemo.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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 the Digest? NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) W.P.(C.) No. 7319/2008 and C.M. No. 14193/2008 (for stay) The management of M/s Shubham Enterprises, in this writ petition, seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 19.03.2008 in I.D. NO. 15/2006 directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with 50% back wages.
2. This writ petition was filed by the management about a year back in October 2008. Since then till now the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had been taking date after date on one or the other pretext. The case was listed yesterday and even yesterday, the date was taken by the counsel appearing for counsel for the petitioner. On the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned yesterday for admission hearing for today. Even today, the counsel 2009:DHC:4350 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, requests for an adjournment stating that the petitioner is negotiating with the respondent for some amicable settlement. This, in my opinion, cannot be a ground for adjournment for admission hearing in a matter which is pending for the last about one year. I have carefully gone through the impugned award assailed by the management in the present writ petition. On going through the said award, I find that the plea of the management before the Labour Court was the denial of relationship of employer and employee between the parties. This plea taken by the management before the Labour Court was rightly rejected on account of the testimony of WW-2 (Labour Inspector) who had deposed that the proprietor of the management firm namely Mr. Mohal lal has made a statement before the Labour Inspector in the conciliation proceedings that the workman was working with the management for the last four years. This testimony of the Labour Inspector before the Labour Court has remained unchallenged. In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. The stay application is also dismissed.
OCTOBER 21, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'BSR'