M/S SUPERIOR ELECTRIC STORE v. SANT LAL

1. This appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose W.P.(C) 9638/2015 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5th July, 2019.

2. Having heard the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the respondent was a workman of this appellant and was engaged as an electrician since 30th April, 1977. Upon termination of his services, the workman – respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter reference was made to the Labour Court – XI, Karkardooma, Delhi. The terms of the reference reads as under: “Vide Order No.F-3(316)/Ref./WD/LAB/321 Dated 11.08.2010 Deputy Labour Commissioner (West District), Labour Department, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, Delhi referred following industrial dispute between workman and management u/s.10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Labour Department Notification No. F.1/31/616/Estt/2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009 for adjudication by this court:- “Whether the services of Sh. Sant Lal S/o Sh. Pawau Lal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. Upon reference the Labour Court – XI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi has passed an award dated 15th July, 2015 based upon the evidences on record, both oral as well as documentary. Looking to the evidence given by MW[1] (Mr. Jai Singh) and also looking to the documents which are admitted by the Labour Court, the respondent - workman’s termination of the services was found to be illegal. Looking to the award passed by the Labour Court, Kakardooma, Delhi, it cannot be said that the award is based upon no evidences on record. On the contrary, there is proper appreciation of the evidences by the Labour Court.

4. Paragraph 12 of the Award passed by Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi reads as under: “Ex. WWl/5 1st page is dated 27.06.2006 and admittedly workman was assigned the work of installing the panel as mentioned in Ex.WWl/5. The fact that on Ex.WWl/5 M/s. Superior Electricals (India) Moti Nagar is mentioned and name of management namely M/s. Superior Electric Store is not mentioned is to no legal consequences inasmuch as admittedly proprietor of both M/s. Superior Electrical (India) and M/s. Superior Electric Store is one and the same namely Mr. Jai Singh. M/s. Superior Electricals (India) and M/s. Superior Electric Store simply being the trade names under which Mr. Jai Singh was carrying out his business are having no legal identity except that of Mr. Jai Singh who is admittedly sole proprietor of both. M/s. Superior Electricals (India) and M/s. Superior Electric Store. The admitted depositions made by Mr. Jai Singh as regards documents exhibited as Ex. MW1/XW[2] to Ex. MW1/XW[6], which are dated 06.02.2004, 16.02.1996, valid for 22.12.99 to 21.01.2000; 01,04.2000 and 02.01.2004 respectively, are not at all consistent with the stand of the management to the effect that somewhere in the year 2000 approached the management and asked for financial assistance which management had refused but considering the services rendered by the workman to the management it was independently given to the workman without any involvement of the management just to oblige the workman and to provide assistance since workman was passing through bad phase. Documents Ex. MW1/XW[2] to Ex. MW1/XW[6] do show the involvement of the management in doing the work by the workman at the places as mentioned in these documents. When the stand as taken by management in the WS has not been found to be worth credence from judicial mind and keeping in view the depositions made by workman in his cross-examination, the preponderance of probabilities suggest that the stand taken by workman in the statement of claim or his evidence affidavit is quite possibly true. In my considered opinion in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case by applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities the possibility of workman having been in the employment of management till 23.07.2009 as per his averments/ depositions cannot be ruled out altogether. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, it deserves to be observed that management terminated the services of workman illegally/unjustifiably on 23.07.2009 as per the case of workman.

NOW MERELY BECAUSE management terminated the services of workman in violation of provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not mean that workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with management with full back wages. In the case in hand management is a sole proprietorship concern owned by Mr. Jai Singh. Workman on the date of cross-examination on 15.11.2014 disclosed his age as 61+ years. Also, in my opinion, in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, order for reinstatement of service of workman with the management may not result in co-ordial industrial relation between the workman and management. Hence, no case for reinstatement of workman in service with the management is made out. Workman in the statement of claim pleaded that workman is unemployed and has got no other source of income and workman could not get job despite best efforts. Workman has not at all given the details, either in the statement of claim or in his evidence affidavit, of so-called best efforts allegedly made by him in search of the job. Obviously, initial burden to prove that workman is unemployed despite efforts made by him is on the workman and workman is supposed to discharge the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence on judicial file. Also it has remained totally unexplained as to how workman has been maintaining himself/his family after the date of termination of services by the management, if he is totally unemployed. The possibility of workman being employed somewhere else or earning money cannot be ruled out altogether. However, it is pertinent to note that MWl Mr. Jai Singh in his crossexamination deposed that, "...........Q. Have you filed on record any document to show the workman is doing his own business or is otherwise gainfully employed?

5. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid evidences on record that after appreciating the same, the Labour Court has passed the award granting thereby compensation of ₹2,25,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. and litigation costs of ₹25,000/-. The award passed by the Labour Court is absolutely in consonance with the law.

6. All aspect of the matter in question has been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. The evidences of the workman has been duly appreciated by the learned Single Judge as stated in the para 7 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus, there is concurrent finding of facts and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order dated 5th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 9638/2015.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. C.M. No. 643/2020 (Stay)

8. In view of the final order passed in LPA 8/2020, this application stands disposed of as infructuous.

CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 10, 2020 ns