IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11645 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 26.03.2010 M/s Delhi Forge Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Faridabad and anr. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 12.2.2008 (Annxure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad. Counsel for the petitioner contends that workman-respondent No.2 was an employee of M/S Surya Investment Casting Pvt.Ltd.- respondent No.3. He contends that the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was, thus, not maintainable against the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.2-workman had preferred a demand notice against M/S Surya Investment Casting Pvt.Ltd.-respondent No.3. The said demand notice is dated 8.3.2004 (Annexure P-5). His contention is that workman could not be the employee of two concerns especially in the light of the fact that he had preferred a demand notice against M/S Surya Investment Casting C.W.P.No.11645 of 2009 -2- Pvt.Ltd.-respondent No.3. It is apparent that the workman was an employee of the said concern and the petitioner concern has nothing to do with the employment or termination of workman-respondent No.2. He, therefore, contends that the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act would not be maintainable against the petitioner. On the basis of this submission, he contends that the impugned order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 12.2.2008 vide which the petitioner was held responsible for making the payment to the workman, cannot be sustained. He contends that the respondent in his written statement filed before this Court has admitted the fact that he is an employee of M/S Surya Investment Casting Pvt.Ltd.-respondent No.3. Thus, he prays that the present writ petition be allowed. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 could not dispute the fact that respondent No.2-workman was an employee of M/S Surya Investment Casting Pvt.Ltd.-respondent No.3. He contends that M/S Delhi Forge Ltd. (petitioner herein) is a sister concern of the M/S Surya Investment Casting Pvt.Ltd.-respondent No.3. He contends this, on the basis of the fact that Sh.N.C.Gupta son of late Sh.R.C.Gupta, who is the Managing Director of the petitioner concern, was also the Director of M/S Surya Investment Casting Pvt.Ltd. He, therefore, contends that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad, is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. C.W.P.No.11645 of 2009 -3- In view of the admitted fact that respondent No.2-workman was an employee of M/S Surya Investment Casting Pvt.Ltd., the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act against M/S Delhi Forge Ltd.(petitioner herein) was not maintainable. That being so, the order dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) holding the petitioner liable for making the payment on an application preferred by respondent No.2-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. Order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) as a consequence of setting aside of the order dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) automatically does not have any force. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed; order dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) is set aside qua the petitioner as the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act would not be maintainable against it. March 26, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE