Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.07.2025
42878/2021, CM APPL. 28842/2022 M/S MOHAN EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Ms. Brinda Batra, Advs.
Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi, Adv. for R- 1/Workman
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Company seeking to challenge an award dated 16.03.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Award’] passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-V, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Labour Court’]. By the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court had held that the Respondent No.1/Workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
2. None appears for Respondent No.2.
3. Briefly the facts of the matter are that the Respondent No.1/Workman was employed as a Head Guard from 14.11.2013 at a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. It is the case of the Respondent No.1/Workman that he filed a claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioners seeking payment of earned wages, and back wages and other incidental reliefs. Despite service of notice, the learned Labour Court found that the Management had failed to file any Written Statement, did not cross-examine the Respondent/Claimant and also failed to lead any evidence in its defence. Consequently, it was held that the evidence presented by the Respondent Nos. 1/Workman remained uncontroverted and unrebutted and was accordingly accepted on its face value by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court thus held that Respondent Nos. 1/Workman was entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with the Petitioner. It is this Impugned Award that is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. It is the contention of the Petitioner-Company that the Respondent No.1/Workman was not the employee of the Petitioner-Company but the employee of the Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in essence, contends that there was no employee-employer relationship between the Petitioner-Company and Respondent No.1 and thus, the Impugned Award was wrongfully passed by the learned Labour Court. 4.[1] In addition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Company, in support of his contentions, seeks to rely upon the Statement of Claim wherein the Respondent No.1/Workman has himself stated that he was appointed by the Respondent No.2. Reliance is also placed on a communication dated 21.09.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2 to the Labour Commissioner wherein it is stated that the Respondent No.1/Workman was the employee of the Respondent No.2. 4.[2] It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner- Company that the Petitioner-Company had sought to place on record the documents in support of its contentions, however, these documents were not taken on record by the learned Labour Court as is evident from the order dated 03.09.2019.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Workman submits that since the Respondent No.2 did not appear before the learned Trial Court. The Impugned Award was passed against Petitioner-Company. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner-Company, although initially appeared and thereafter stopped appearing before the learned Labour Court, thus an Ex-parte award was passed.
6. As stated above, it is the contention of the Petitioner-Company that Respondent No.1/Workman was not his employee but the employee of Respondent No. 2. It is apposite to extract the Statement of Claim, which sets out this below: “STATEMENT OF CLAIM Sir, The claim on behalf of the employee is presented in the statement as follows:
1. That the Employee, Karan Pal Singh had been working continuously in the said Institution No.1, M/s Mohan Exports India Pvt. Ltd. as Head Guard through the Institution No.2 M/s Knight Watch Security Ltd. since 14.11.2013, with great hard work, dedication and honesty, his last drawn monthly salary was Rs.l[2],000/-. The Management gave the employee an I. Card in the name of the Security Supervisor, but the employee was charged with the duty of a watchman daily for all 12 hours of the Home Guard and no overtime payment was given.” [Emphasis supplied] 6.[1] Despite this averment, the learned Labour Court has given a finding in the Impugned Award that the evidence of the Claimant remains uncontroverted.
7. The Statement of Claim also reflects that after the first paragraph, the entire Statement of Claim refers to the "Management" without specifying if it refers to Management 1 or Management 2. 7.[1] An examination of the Impugned Award shows that the Impugned Award sets out that the Respondent No.1/Workman was employed with the "Management" without setting out who the employer of the Respondent No.1/Workman. The Impugned Award has dealt with the Management No.1 and Management No.2 [Petitioner-Company and Respondent No.2 before this Court respectively] collectively, whereas they are two separate entities.
8. The record also reflects that an attempt was made by the Petitioner- Company [Management No.1 before the learned Labour Court] to file documents before the learned Labour Court. However, these documents were not taken on record as being “irrelevant”. It is apposite to extract the order dated 03.09.2019 in this behalf below: “ID No. 633-19 03.09.2019 Present: Ld counsel for claimant. Proxy counsel for management No.1 who filed certain documents. However, the said documents are irrelevant w.r.t present matter. Let WS be filed on behalf of both the management within 30 days from today with advance copy to other party now on 05.11.2019.” [Emphasis Supplied]
9. In any event, since it is not disputed by the Respondent No.1/Workman that he was the employee of the Respondent No.2 who did not contest the proceedings before the learned Labour Court and neither the proceedings before this Court, it was incumbent on the learned Labour Court to examine the evidence and documents on record. This has not been done, as is clear from the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court which sets out that the documents filed by the Petitioner-Company are irrelevant.
10. It is apposite to set out the findings in the Impugned Award which are below: “PART-B MANAGEMENT'S STAND/REPLY
8. In pursuance of the service of summons of the claim petition, the management no.1 put up its appearance through its AR Sh. Rakesh Kumar who filed his authority letter as well as certain documents but thereafter despite grant of opportunity failed to file the WS and accordingly, was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 31.01.2020.
9. The management no.2, despite service of summons of the claim petition upon it through Process Server against affixation of its rubber stamp as acknowledgment of service of the summons on the summons itself on 19.07.2019 neither filed any appearance nor filed the WS and accordingly, it was also proceeded ex parte vide order dated 31.01.2020. PART-C WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
10. In support of his claim workman examined himself as WW[1] and deposed along the lines of statement of claim and also proved on record documents in support.
11. The management bas also not come forward to cross-examine the claimant PART-D FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
12. After considering the claim. document and the evidence led on record, decision of the court is as under:-
13. As the management has not come forward to file any Written Statement or to cross-examine the claimant or to lead its own evidence, the evidence of the claimant remained uncontroverted and unrebutted and as such accepted on its face value.
14. Hence, the claimant is held entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
15. Reference answered accordingly.” [Emphasis Supplied]
11. In addition, as can be seen from the above, the Impugned Award does not contain any reasons or findings for reaching conclusion that the Respondent No.1/Workman is entitled to re-instatement and full back wages.
12. It is settled law that reasons must be given for every judgment passed by a Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta[1] has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is below:-
and the decision or conclusion arrived at.’ Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”
13. The proposition of law that reasoning is required to be given in judicial pronouncements and by authorities, even for quasi-judicial decisions has been discussed in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.2. The relevant extract is set out below:
of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decisionmaking not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.”
14. Quite clearly, the Impugned Award does not give any finding in the matter except for the fact that since the Respondent No.2 did not appear before the learned Labour Court and the Petitioner-Company did not come forward to cross-examine the Respondent No.1/workman, the evidence remained uncontroverted and unrebutted and as such accepted on its face value. Given the fact that the Respondent No.1/Workman had admitted to being an employee of Respondent No.2 Company, this finding cannot be sustained.
15. In view of the aforegoing, the Impugned Award is set aside.
16. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 30.07.2025.
17. Given the pendency of the matter, the parties submit that they will be present for the hearings and will not take any unnecessary adjournments before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court shall conduct the proceeding de novo. 17.[1] The Written Statement shall be filed by the Petitioner-Company within a period of four weeks from today. Replication/Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
18. The learned Labour Court is at liberty to issue Notice to the Respondent No.2, who has not appeared before this Court today.
19. Given the fact that the Petitioner-Company failed to appear before the learned Labour Court, this Court deems it apposite to impose costs on the Petitioner-Company in the sum of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Respondent No.1/Workman.
20. The Petition is disposed of in the aforegoing directions. All pending Application also stand closed.