Delhi District Court
Sh. Shravan Singh vs M/S. Pick Up Industries Pvt. Limited on 31 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANMOHAN SHARMA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. XII,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
I. D. No. 147/08
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN
Sh. Shravan Singh,
S/o. Sh. Ajit Singh,
C/o. Rashtriya Rajdhani Shramik Sangh,
T78, Milan Market,
Shivaji Marg, Karampura,
New Delhi.
.........Workman
AND
M/s. Pick Up Industries Pvt. Limited,
3194/H, Gali no. 232,
Chander Nagar, Tri Nagar,
New Delhi.
......Management
Date of institution : 18.10.2002
Date of arguments :
Date of award : 31.07.2010
AWARD
1. An Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.
Pick Up Industries Pvt. Limited, 3194/H, Gali no. 232, Chander
Nagar, Tri Nagar, New Delhi and its workman Shravan Singh, S/o.
Sh. Ajit Singh, C/o. Rashtriya Rajdhani Shramik Sangh, T78, Milan
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 1 out of 12
Market, Shivaji Marg, Karampura, New Delhi was referred by
Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
for adjudication in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(c),
10(1)(d) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter to
be referred as Act) vide his Order No. F. 24 (605)/2002Lab./189498
dated 24.06.2002 with the following terms of reference :
"Whether the services of Sh. Shravan Singh,
S/o. Sh. Ajit Singh have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so to what sum of money
as monetary relief alongwith consequential
benefit in terms of existing laws/Government
notifications and to what other relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?"
2. The notice of reference was issued to the workman who
filed his statement of claim.
3. The case as put forth by the workman is that he was
working as Skilled Labour with the management (M/s. Pick Up
Industries Private Limited) since 1978 at last drawn wages of Rs.
6000/ per month. There was no cause of complaint against him.
The management is indulging in anti labour practices and not
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 2 out of 12
providing the legal facilities to the workman. The workman raised the
demand time and again and this infuriated the management. The
management terminated his services on 27.6.2001 without any
justification and without paying earned wages of May, 2001 which the
workman has demanded. Other dues of workman since 1.5.2000 to
27.6.2000 were not paid. The workman made a complaint to Labour
Department on 21.6.2001. The workman sent a demand notice on
28.6.2001 which was neither replied nor complied. The workman is
unemployed since the date of his termination despite efforts made.
He claimed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back
wages.
4. The reference by the Government of NCT of Delhi
mentioned the name of the management as M/S Pickup Industries
Pvt. Limited.
5. The management M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited was
proceeded as exparte. An exparte award was passed by my Ld.
Predecessor on 19.07.2004 thereby directing the reinstatement of the
workman with full back wages, continuity of service and ancillary
benefits.
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 3 out of 12
6. Subsequent to the publication of the award one entity
namely M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Limited filed a W.P. (C) No.
16934/2005 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the pleadings that it
was persecuted for the enforcement of the award which was against
M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Ltd.
7. The following directions were passed in the WP(C) No.
16934/2005 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated
29.10.2007:
" I have heard the counsels for the parties
and also inspected the records. The
petitioner has filed a copy of its certificate of
incorporation which shows that the
petitioner was incorporated by the Registrar
of Companies, Government of NCT of
th
Delhi & Haryana on 9 February, 1998,
whereas in the claim petition, the
respondent workman has stated that he
has been working with the management in question since the year 1978. this Court is of the prima facie view that there is some force in the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to be granted an opportunity of hearing on I. D. No. 147/08 Page 4 out of 12 merits before the Labour Court to substantiate its claim that the petitioner is not the Management with whom the respondent workman was employed . The said issue is required to be decided on merits by the Labour Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned th exparte award dated 19 July, 2004 is set aside. However, to balance the equities and considering the facts that eight long years have elapsed since the termination of the services of the respondent workman, it would be appropriate to compensate the respondent workman by directing the petitioner to pay the respondent workman a sum of Rs. 10,000/ as costs, apart from a sum of Rs. 7,500 towards litigation expenses. The said amounts shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent through counsel within a period of four weeks.
The parties are directed are directed to th appear before the Labour Court on 5 December, 2007, on which the date, the petitioner shall file its written statement to the statement of claim and the Labour Court shall proceed further in the matter.
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 5 out of 12
In view of the facts that much time has
been lost since the reference to expedite the hearing and make an endeavour to dispose of the industrial dispute preferably within a period of six months. "
8. In terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the parties were asked to complete the pleadings. Written statement was filed by the management of M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd.
9. The management M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. in its written statement denied the existence of employeremployee relationship. It also stated that M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. is a distinct and separate legal entity from M/S Pick up Industries Pvt. Ltd. The management pleaded that it can be proceeded against in terms of the reference order which is against M/S Pick up Industries Pvt. Ltd. The management of M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. took the plea that no entity by the name of M/S Pick up Industries Pvt. Ltd. ever operated at the address 3194/H, Gali No. 232, Chander Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035. The pleadings on merits were denied by the management of M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. in above terms.
10. No rejoinder has been filed by the workman.
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 6 out of 12
11. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 07.03.2008:
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2. As per terms of reference.
3. Relief.
12. The matter was posted for evidence of the workman.
13. No evidence was produced by the workman despite repeated opportunities. The workman took adjournments on various pleas.
14. On 11.11.2008 the AR of the workman informed that the workman has applied for issuance of corrigendum to the reference.
The matter was adjourned various times awaiting the corrigendum to the reference.
15. On 25.01.2010 this Court issued directions to the office of the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi to depute a competent official to apprise the Court about the decision taken on the application of the workman for issue of a corrigendum to correct the name of the management.
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 7 out of 12
16. On 26.05.2010 Shri K.R. Verma, Deputy Labour Commissioner (North West District) appeared and apprised the Court that the workman's application for issue of a corrigendum has been rejected on 22.03.2010. The copy of the said letter No. F.24(605)/ 2002/Labour/NW/2010/131516 dated 22.03.2010 is on record.
17. The case was therefore listed for addressing submission on the maintainability of claim.
18. The matter was heard on 03.07.2010 and the oral arguments were addressed by the management M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. by its AR Shri Nishit Kunj.
19. None appeared on behalf of the workman. However the workman was afforded an opportunity to file written arguments. No written arguments were filed by the workman in terms of the opportunity provided.
20. The arguments were therefore closed on 24.07.2010.
21. It has been submitted by Shri Nishit Kunj, AR of the management M/S Pik Up Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. that after the rejection of the application of the workman for issue of corrigendum by changing the name of management from M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited to management M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd.
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 8 out of 12 nothing survives for adjudication. As it is a reference matter the jurisdiction of the Court is limited and it has to act within the four corners of the reference order. It cannot extend its jurisdiction to bring within its ambit the matters which are not referred to. The management of M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. thus is liable to be discharged from the case and the case is to be closed finally as nothing survives for adjudication.
22. I have considered the submissions as well as the material on record.
23. A copy of the application dated 25.09.2008 filed by the workman before the Secretary (Labour) is on record. In para 4 of the application it has been stated by the workman that inadvertently the name of the management M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. has been mentioned as M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited. The workman prayed for change of name of the management of the workman from M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited to M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. by issuing a corrigendum to the reference.
24. At the cost of repetition, the said representation of the workman was rejected by the Government on 22.03.2010. There is I. D. No. 147/08 Page 9 out of 12 nothing to show that the said order has been challenged by the workman.
25. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Others AIR 1967 SC 469 it has been held that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the tribunal was required to restrict its adjudication to the points of dispute referred to it and anything which was incidental to the same and that the tribunal was not free to widen the scope of the dispute.
26. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is circumscribed by the order of reference of the appropriate government. It can at the most take into consideration the matters which are incidental to the matter referred. It cannot materially enlarge the scope of inquiry by delving into the matter not referred.
27. In view of this position of law, in the matrix of the facts of the present case the following facts emerge:
(i). There is an admission on the part of the workman that the management involved in the industrial dispute is the management of M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. and not the I. D. No. 147/08 Page 10 out of 12 management of M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited.
(ii). The reference is regarding the management of M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited and not regarding the management of M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd.
28. In view of the above the substratum of the present reference does not subsist. The reference is regarding the management of M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited which the workman has given up in his application for issue of corrigendum, and such admission is binding upon the workman. The appropriate government has rejected the application of the workman for issue of corrigendum to change the name of management to M/S Pikup Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. instead of M/S Pickup Industries Pvt.
Limited. Thus M/S Pickup Industries Pvt. Limited is a nonexisting entity and any award passed against it would be a nullity.
29. Therefore any further proceedings in the present case would be a lame prosecution. Therefore, in view of the position that has emerged the claim of the workman has become nonest. I. D. No. 147/08 Page 11 out of 12
30. The claim is therefore rejected and the reference is answered accordingly.
31. A copy of the award be sent to Secretary (Labour) for necessary action and be also sent to server (www.delhicourts.nic.in). The file be consigned to the record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED 31 JULY 2010 st (MAN MOHAN SHARMA) Presiding Officer Labour Court No. XII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I. D. No. 147/08 Page 12 out of 12