Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Ved Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Sh. Subash Chandra Verma on 1 March, 2021

Author: Jyoti Singh

Bench: Jyoti Singh

                          $~A-12
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +     W.P. (C) 2716/2021

                                M/S VED ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners
                                             Through   Mr. Shashwat Singh Gaur, Advocate.

                                                    versus

                                SH. SUBASH CHANDRA VERMA                             ..... Respondent
                                             Through: None.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
                                        ORDER

% 01.03.2021 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. CM Nos. 8098-8099/2021 (Exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

W.P. (C) 2716/2021 By way of present writ petition the Petitioner assails the award dated 11.07.2019 in I.D. No. 2675/2017 as well as amended award dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court whereby relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service has been awarded in favour of the workmen.

Mr. Shashwat Singh Gaur learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the ex-parte award has been erroneously passed by the learned Labour Court and is liable to be set aside as the Petitioners were never served during the proceedings before the Labour Court. It is submitted that the process Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARABJEET KAUR Signing Date:04.03.2021 18:08:52 server had furnished a report dated 20.03.2019 clearly indicating that the management/Petitioners' premises were found locked and also that there was nobody in the vicinity. Without ascertaining the availability of the Petitioners at the said address, the process server wrongly affixed the summons. Thus, there was no service on the Petitioners in the eyes of law. He draws the attention of the Court to the report of the process server, which is appended at page No. 102 to the writ petition and relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"Today on 20.03.2019, after arriving at the site as per the order, inquiry of Krishna Facility Mgt. Services was conducted and then lock was found lying on the spot. Nothing could come to know in the vicinity and as per the order of the Court, one copy has been pasted on the spot. Report is submitted in your service."

It is further argued that the registered office of the Petitioners is at Plot No. 86, third floor, Pocket-II, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi, which comprises of three floors and is guarded by a 24 X 7 guard, posted at the entrance of the building. Thus the report of the process server that the premises were locked is itself false and casts a doubt on the veracity of the very visit of the process server. In fact the office of the Petitioners remains open six days a week and is never locked except for the first floor.

Learned counsel further submits that on 10.04.2019 the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was on leave and the Reader passed an order that the Petitioners were served by affixation, without reading the exact contents of the report. On the next date of hearing i.e. 06.06.2019 the Labour Court, based on the order dated 10.04.2019, presumed that the Petitioners had been served by affixation and passed an order proceeding ex-

parte against the Petitioners. After coming to know about the ex-parte award, when the notices were received, Petitioners filed an application on 07.03.2010 for setting aside the ex-parte award. The Labour Court however did not consider the material on record which pointed towards the fact that the Petitioners were unserved and passed an order on 17.03.2020 dismissing the application as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

Learned counsel further submits that even on merits the Respondent has no case for many reasons. The Respondent has falsely claimed that he was working as an Accountant-cum field workman whereas his own documents such as identity card, salary slip etc. would show that he was working as Administration Manager i.e. a Managerial Post. The Labour Court has also erred in not answering the reference as per which the first issue that was required to be answered was if the Respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It is further argued that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the Respondent's own Resume revealed that he had been gainfully employed and had in fact earlier himself resigned from the services of Petitioner No. 2 in March, 2014 and settled all his dues and resigned from the service of Petitioner No. 1 in 2016 and all his outstanding dues were cleared by the management.

Issue notice to the Respondent on the Petitioners taking requisite steps, through all permissible modes, returnable on 05.05.2021.

Issue notice to the Respondent on the Petitioners taking requisite steps, through all permissible modes, returnable on 05.05.2021.

CM Nos. 8096/2021 (stay) Issue notice to the Respondent on the Petitioners taking requisite steps, through all permissible modes, returnable on 05.05.2021.

Till the next date of hearing, the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned amended award dated 12.12.2019 including award dated 11.07.2019 is stayed subject to the Petitioners depositing 50% of the awarded amount in this Court within a period of four weeks. The amount so deposited shall be invested in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit with a Nationalised Bank.

JYOTI SINGH, J MARCH 01, 2021 yo Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARABJEET KAUR Signing Date:04.03.2021 18:08:52