Delhi High Court - Orders
Management Of M/S Indraprastha Power ... vs Shri Hemraj Sharma on 1 December, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13610/2021 and CM APPLs. 42971/2021, 42972/2021
MANAGEMENT OF M/S INDRAPRASTHA POWER
GENERATION CO.LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.K.Vats and Kumari Alka,
Advocates
versus
SHRI HEMRAJ SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 01.12.2021
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. 42971/2021 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. WP(C) 13610/2021 & CM APPLs. 42972/2021 (for stay)
3. The Petitioner-Management assails the order dated 26th September, 2020 in LCA No.282/2016 (New) titled Sh. Hem Raj Sharma v. Management of M/s Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited, by which the overtime wages of Rs.43,338/- have been directed to be paid to the Respondent-Workman in the following terms:
"In view of the facts & circumstances of the case and the cited case law the application of the applicant- workman stands allowed. Thus the ISSUE is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management. Consequently, this AWARD is passed in favour of workman claimant Shri Hem Raj Sharma S/o Late Shri W.P.(C) 13610/2021 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11 R.L. Sharma. The management-IPGCL is directed to pay the amount of Rs.43,338/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Eight only) to the applicant Shri Hem Raj Sharma S/o Late Shri R.L. Sharma, within 60 days, failing which the workman will be entitled to the interest on the abovesaid amount @12% per annum from the date of this award till its realization from the management. The cost of the litigation is also awarded to the workman as provided in Section 11(7) of the Industrial Dispute Act."
4. The main ground raised by the Petitioner is that no records were produced to prove that the Workman had rendered services during overtime. However, the Authority has gone by a document which was marked 'A' and has awarded the same. The said document, claimed to be a copy of the details of overtime wages from the register of the Delhi Vidyut Board, is the best evidence that the Workman could have obtained. In so far as the evidence of the Petitioner is concerned, no documents were produced to rebut this document.
5. Under these circumstances, a similar petition was also heard by this Court being WP(C) 8710/2021 titled Management of M/s Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited v. Sh. Yogesh Dutt Sharma, where the Petitioner's case was not accepted, as the management had failed to discharge its onus once the Workman had provided his best evidence. The observations of the Court therein read as under:
"10. The Court has also perused the impugned award as also the copy of the register of the DVB which has been placed on record. The said extract from the DVB register seems to have been filed after the Workman had obtained a photocopy of the same. It is obvious that the DVB's original register is not in the possession of the Workman, and he merely had a photocopy of the same, W.P.(C) 13610/2021 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11 which he produced before the Ld. Labour Court. The said extract of the register shows that various details in respect of nine Workmen including their employee code, phone no. their designation, and the amount of overtime wages which are to be paid, has been recorded. Against the Petitioner's name, his Employee No. is recorded along with Rs.10,399/- as overtime wages to be paid to him. Thus, it is obvious that the best way in which the workman could have discharged the onus on him, has been done. It was upto the management to have established the contrary once the initial burden was discharged by producing the original register of the DVB or to produce any other document to establish that the Workman did not deserve the amount to be awarded in his favour. However, the Award of the Ld. Labour Court and the evidence which is recorded on behalf of the Petitioner/Management clearly shows that the Petitioner/Management has completely avoided even dealing with the main issue in the affidavit, as also in the cross examination. The Ld. Labour Court is right in holding that the Petitioner/Management's evidence does not hold water.
11. This Court is of the opinion that the said evidence adduced by the Petitioner/Management does not inspire any confidence. Considering that the amount of overtime wages which has been awarded is Rs.10,399/-, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Award does not warrant any interference in this matter. The overtime wages to the tune of Rs.10,399/- shall now be paid to the Workman within eight weeks, failing which interest of 12% per annum as per the impugned Award would accrue."
6. Accordingly, the present petition is also dismissed. The time for making payment to the Workman is now extended till 31st December, 2021. If the amount is paid by the said date, no further interest would be liable to be paid failing which, interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the award would W.P.(C) 13610/2021 Page 3 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11 be liable to be paid as well.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 1, 2021 mw/MS W.P.(C) 13610/2021 Page 4 of 4