Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Unique Fashion vs Sanjeev Kumar Singh on 23 November, 2020
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:24.11.2020
16:03:38
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9247/2020 and CM APPL. 29838/2020, 29839/2020
M/S UNIQUE FASHION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Anand and Ms. Charu
Chaudhary, Advs. (M: 8447226339).
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 23.11.2020
1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 30 th July, 2019 (wrongly mentioned as 30th July, 2018) passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Courts, by which the Workman has been directed to be reinstated with full back wages. The Petitioner/ Defendant has also been directed to pay all consequential benefits to the Workman from the date of termination i.e. 25th May, 2016. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the award is an ex-parte award and the order came to the notice of the Petitioner only when the office of the Joint Labour Commissioner had sent a notice stating that the amount due would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
3. Mr. Anand, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the award is an ex parte award and the Petitioner was never served in the Industrial Dispute. He points out to the order dated 20th February, 2019 in which the Labour Court had specifically recorded that the process server had mentioned that W.P.(C) 9247/2020 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:23.11.2020 19:58 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:24.11.2020 16:03:38 the management firm had left the premises where the affixation was directed to be done. He further submits that the order of affixation in the same premises, where the management firm was no longer working, is completely wrong and thus, there was no service. In view of this, Mr. Anand, ld. counsel, submits that the management has not had a chance to contest the matter at all.
4. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned award as also recovery proceedings ought to be quashed.
5. Issue notice to the Respondent-Workman, returnable on the next date.
6. A perusal of the said order of affixation reads as under: -
" Process Server Sh. J.K. Rai, Employee Code:
19561501, Posted at Nazarat Branch, Saket Court (SE), New Delhi, is present. He has submitted that on 09-08-2018, he visited the premises of the management as mentioned in the notice, one person met him at the given premises who told that firm has left the given premises. He pasted a copy of the notice on the wall of the given premises i.e. B-30, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. His report is Ex.PS-1, bearing his signature at point "A". His statement was recorded separately.
Heard. Considered. In view of the statement of the process server Ex. PS-1, management stands served through affixation. Despite the fact that the management has been duly served through affixation none is present on behalf of the management despite repeated calls. Therefore, the management is proceeded against ex-parte.
Put up for workman's ex-parte evidence on 23-05- 2019."
7. The first paragraph clearly notes that the process server had written in his report that the firm has left the said premises. Thus, there was no purpose W.P.(C) 9247/2020 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:23.11.2020 19:58 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:24.11.2020 16:03:38 to be served by affixing a notice when the firm was no longer operating the premises. Moreover, a perusal of the notice issued thereafter by the Union to the residence of the management, itself shows that the employee was well aware of the alternate address of the management. However, he chose not to serve the management until the final award was passed, and service was, for the first time, sought to be affected only the recovery proceedings.
8. Under these circumstances, subject to the Petitioner depositing Rs. 25,000/- to the Registrar General, as litigation expenses for the Respondent, the impugned award shall remain stayed. The question of any further deposit shall be considered after the Workman has entered appearance in this matter.
9. In view of the main award being stayed, the recovery proceedings initiated by the Joint Labour Commissioner against the Petitioner, shall not been proceeded with.
10. List on 25th February, 2021.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2020 MR/Ak W.P.(C) 9247/2020 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:23.11.2020 19:58