Delhi District Court
Sh. Krishna Nandan Prasad Yadav vs The Paras Paper Agency on 4 September, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH: PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR
COURT NO. XVI: KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
LCA NO. 46/09
Sh. Krishna Nandan Prasad Yadav
s/o Sh. Ram Bharose Lal
c/o Sh. Saumitra Singhal, Advocate
Y29, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi54.
...... Workman
VERSUS
The Paras Paper Agency
Shop No.5, Melaram Chambers
45455, Chitla Gate,
Delhi6.
...... Management
Date of Institution : 26.08.09
Judgment reserved : 05.07.10
Date of decision : 04.09.10
O R D E R
1. As per application, an industrial dispute regarding illegal termination of the workman was filed before Sh. Sanjay Sharma, POLCII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is stated that Ld. POLCII has passed an award dt. 2.12.04 in favour of workman by giving him reinstatement with full back wages. Award was LCA No.46/09 1/5 2 completely implemented from 23.08.05 after being published in Govt. Gaztt. It is further stated that meanwhile, management approached the Hon'ble High court where its W.P. No. 18113/06 dt. 05.12.08 was dismissed and the award was again got in force. Workman sent a demand notice dt. 15.06.09 through registered AD and UPC demanding reinstatement and full back wages as per award of Ld. POLCII. However, management neither replied the said demand notice nor took the workman back on duty, which itself is the violation of the aforesaid award. It is stated that the workman is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,83,926/ payable by the management.
2. WS filed by the management wherein it is stated that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the applicant was employed by the management in March 1996 as Helper at the monthly salary of Rs. 1,950/ per month on temporary basis. It is further stated that the applicant worked with the management till November 1996 and all of a sudden he left the job and never reported back. It is further stated that thereafter management firm suffered losses and stopped its business w.e.f. 2001 and since then the management firm is lying closed. It is further stated that during his employment, applicant had requested the management for a loan of Rs. 5,000/ for marriage of his daughter, which was given to him. It is stated that the applicant instead of repaying the said loan amount, left the job and filed a false and frivolous claim. It is further stated that vide award dt. 02.12.04, Ld. Labour Court was pleased to pass an award thereby directed the respondent to reinstate the applicant with full back wages. It is further stated that being aggrieved by said award dt.. 02.12.04, a Writ Petition was preferred by the respondent before LCA No.46/09 2/5 3 the Hon'ble High Court titled as Paras Paper Agency V/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr. It is further stated that in the said Writ Petition, vide order dt. 05.12.06 Hon'ble High court was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned award dt. 02.12.04. Hon'ble Court was further pleased to issue notice to the applicant herein subject to the respondent herein depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/ with the Hon'ble High Court. It is stated that the said amount was deposited with Hon'ble High court. It is further stated that thereafter because of wrong noting of date inadvertently, none appeared for the respondent herein on 03.12.08 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed in default. It is further stated that immediately after coming to know about the said dismissal, an application for restoration was preferred by the respondent and which application is now coming up for hearing before Hon'ble High court on 24.11.09. It is further stated that the impugned award dt. 02.12.04 has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set aside by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition. It is prayed that the hearing of present execution proceedings may kindly be deferred till decision of WP(C) 181133/2006 "Paras Paper Agency V/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr.
3. Rejoinder to the WS not filed. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 15.12.09 :
1. Whether the workman is entitled to claim the relief as claimed in the claim petition?
4. WW1, in his examination in chief, deposed that he raised an industrial dispute against his illegal termination which has been decided by the Labour Court no.II in I.D. No. 858/97 vide award dt. 02.12.04. He further deposed that LCA No.46/09 3/5 4 the management has not implemented the award. He deposed that neither he was paid back wages in terms of the award nor he had been reinstated by the management. He stated that his total claim of back wages from May 1997 to April 2009 is Rs. 3,78,726/ as per the calculation annexed with his claim.
5. The cross examination of workman was treated as NIL since main AR for management was not available. Hence, WE stood closed and case was adjourned for ME. However, neither affidavit of any MW filed nor management examined any witness despite opportunity. ME was closed and case was adjourned for final arguments.
6. Both the parties failed to address any oral arguments. Hence, an opportunity to file written arguments was given to the parties. Till date, neither any written arguments were filed by the parties nor any oral arguments were addressed.
7. I have seen the file and my inference is that that the issue be decided in favour of the workman on the following grounds:
i) Mere denial by the management cannot ispo facto result into dismissal of the application of the workman without adjudication as to what is his right subsisting at the time of the filing of the dispute.
ii) Under section 33 C (2) of ID Act, labour court works as an Execution Court. However, there should be subsisting and existing right to be LCA No.46/09 4/5 5 executed.
iii) The present LCA has been filed by the workman on the basis of award dt. 02.12.04 passed by Sh. Sanjay Sharma, POLCII. Under this award, workman was given reinstatement with full back wages and all other legal benefits. This fact has also been admitted by the management in its WS.
However, instead of complying the award, management filed a writ petition against the award, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. Till date, the award has neither been implemented nor complied by the management despite knowledge of relief given to the workman.
iv) At the time of evidence, workman examined himself and corroborated the facts stated in his statement of claim. Management failed to cross examine the workman and also failed to lead any evidence on its behalf. Hence, the facts stated by the workman remains unrebutted and unchallenged.
In view of the above reasons and discussions, workman is entitled to the amount of Rs. 3,83,926/ as claimed.
8. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance by Ahlmad.
Announced in the Open Court (DAYA PRAKASH)
th
on 4 September, 2010 Additional District & Session Judge
Presiding Officer labour Court XVI
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi.
LCA No.46/09 5/5
6
LCA No.46/09 6/5
7
Announced in the Open Court (DAYA PRAKASH)
th
on 17 May, 2010 Additional District & Session Judge
Presiding Officer labour Court XVI
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi.
LCA No.46/09 7/5