Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay Thakur vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta on 3 December, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:06.12.2021 18:19:45
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1128/2020
SANJAY THAKUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate.
versus
RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 03.12.2021
1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court. CM APPL. 34456/2021 (for restoration of petition)
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the Petitioner for restoration of the petition. Since 29th January, 2020, the Petitioner has appeared only on one date, and sought an adjournment. Thereafter, the Petitioner has failed to appear on four dates.
3. No ground has been made in the application for restoration, except for the submission that the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner was under the impression that en bloc dates had been given in the matter.
4. Insofar as 2020 matters are concerned, the Circular issued by this High Court in this regard is extremely clear. Such an impression, that en bloc dates are being given, cannot be carried by the Petitioner.
5. Even today, an opportunity has been granted to the ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner to make submission on merits. However, he submits that he is not aware of the merits of the case.
6. On merits, a perusal of the impugned Award dated 5th July, 2018 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.12.2021 18:19:45 shows that the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was an employer-employee relationship between the Management and the Workman. However, the Workman did not report back to his duty, and had abandoned his job. Further, the payment of the final dues to the Workman has also been admitted. The relevant portion of the Award reads:
"11. From the aforesaid communications, though its stands proved that there was an existence of relationship of employer and employee between him and the management and that the workman had also received his dues before the Labour Inspector from the management but it has no where been mentioned by the workman as to when he had reported back to his duties with the management and when he was denied his job by the management. Neither in his statement of claim nor in his affidavit, the workman had whispered a single fact about this date. Nor even the communications carried out on the letterheads of the union had mentioned any such dates when the workman had allegedly reported back to his duties with the management, rather the letter dated 27.04.2016 makes it amply clear that the workman had failed to report back to his duties till 27.04.2016. Once, the workman himself had not disclosed the said date of his reporting for duty or its alleged denial by the management then it could not be held that an "Industrial Dispute" had arisen between the parties.
12. The payment of dues without any protest by the workman has been admitted by him vide aforesaid document Ex. WW1/2.
13. Hence, 1 have no hesitation in holding that there remained no industrial dispute between the parties to be adjudicated by this Court and thus, the statement of claim as filed by the workman is dismissed."
7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Award dated 5th July, 2018 does not warrant any interference.
8. With these observations, the present application is dismissed.
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.12.2021 18:19:45
9. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 3, 2021 MR/AD