Delhi High Court
Index International (P) Ltd. Through ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 6 September, 2006
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this order, I shall dispose of an application under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act made by respondent No. 3. He claimed that he was unemployed from the date of his termination and has not been able to get any job or service in any establishment despite his best efforts. The application was accompanied by an affidavit to the same effect. In reply to the application, it is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent, after abandoning the job of the petitioner, went to his native place in Nepal and settled there. The respondent thereafter married and acquired a family in Nepal. His contention that he remained unemployed was wrong on the face of it. In rejoinder, the respondent denied that he was employed or that he settled down in Nepal. After filing of rejoinder, the petitioner got the address of the respondent. The petitioner entrusted the work of finding out the present whereabouts and job of the respondent to a detective agency. Detective Agency, after investigating the case, gave a report which has been placed on record. The respondent in his affidavit has given his address as 2212-E, Molarbandh Extension, Gali No. 61-C, Badarpur. The report of the detective agency was that this house number was not correct and at this address one Mr. Trinugh Ekka of Jharkhand was living. Mr. Ekka was ignorant about the respondent. The report of detective agency shows that the respondent was living in House No. 2212/E-2, Badarpur in House of Lekhi Lal with his wife and two children in Gali No. 61C as tenant. The two children of respondent Ms. Ankita and Master Shiva used to study in Great Himalayan Public School and the respondent used to work in an apparel factory called Samera in Sector-37, Faridabad as a helper in stitching and QC department. Mr. Parbhat Dubeey of investigating agency has filed his own affidavit about the investigation. He submitted in the affidavit that the inquiry was made from the children and children told that their father(respondent) had gone to duty and that the respondent was working as a helper through Mr. Thomas, a contractor, depending upon the workload, he was engaged in Q.C. Department.
2. After filing of this report and affidavit, the respondent No. 3 filed another affidavit in which he submitted that he got married in June, 1989. He has one daughter and one son studying in school. His daughter is aged 13 years and son is aged 11 years. He denied that he worked with Samera Apparel through contractor or that he got the job through contractor Thomas. He again submitted in the affidavit that he was not gainfully employed in any establishment.
3. Looking into the report and the affidavit of the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Dubeey, I consider that the respondent No. 3 seems to be gainfully employed. He has two children who are studying in a public school. In 1989, he married in Nepal. If he had been unemployed and had no means of bringing up a family, he would not have married in 1989 when he was allegedly out of job. The fact that after marrying in Nepal, he again shifted to India and came to industrial estate of Badarpur and started living in Badarpur in a rented accommodation and his children are studying in a public school show that he has been all along gainfully employed and he has not come to court with clean hands. The application is hereby dismissed.
4. The application stands disposed of.