W.P. (C) No. 673/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 673/2010 % Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2010 M/s Chetan Industries ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Kalra, Advocate versus Shri Ayodhya & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral: 1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned Award passed by the labour Court No. VII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 43/2007 whereby the labour Court has awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation in favour of the respondent workman and against the petitioner management to be payable by the petitioner management within a period of one month of the W.P. (C) No. 673/2010 Page 2 of 5 publication of the Award, failing which interest rate of 9% has been awarded on the amount of compensation. 2. Mr. V.K. Kalra, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 was a casual worker and was employed by the petitioner on temporary basis on 6.4.2003. Counsel further submitted that respondent No. 1 had worked only for 105 days (including Sunday and holidays) during the period w.e.f. 6th April, 2003 to 21st April, 2004 whereafter he never resumed his duties. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have independent identities and so far employment of respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 is concerned and he had duly admitted the fact that after submitting his resignation letter dated 11.2.2000, he had received full and final wages and other dues amounting to Rs. 11,803/-. Counsel further submitted that the onus was on the respondent workman to prove the fact that he had served the petitioner management for 240 days preceding the date of his alleged termination, but he had failed to discharge the said onus. Counsel thus submitted that the Award passed by the labour Court is illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law. W.P. (C) No. 673/2010 Page 3 of 5 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and gone through the records. 4. The respondent workman had raised an industrial dispute against his illegal termination and the case set up by the respondent workman before the Tribunal was that he had joined respondent No. 2 in July, 1992 on the post of a machine man and later on he started working with the petitioner management i.e. M/s Chetan Industries, which is in the same premises. The respondent workman was provided with the ESI facilities, but the same were terminated by respondent No. 2 management in the year 2001. Thereafter, a fresh ESI card was provided to the respondent workman by the petitioner management, where a fresh date of appointment was shown as that from April, 2003. The counsel for the respondent workman further submitted that since he had been demanding some legal facilities, therefore, feeling annoyed with him, the management terminated his services on 5.7.2006. 5. The case of the petitioner management on the other hand was that the respondent workman had voluntarily resigned from respondent No. 2 management on 11.2.2000 and he had in fact accepted his dues amounting to Rs. 11,803/-. W.P. (C) No. 673/2010 Page 4 of 5 6. Then on being approached by the respondent workman sometime in March/April, 2003, he was employed by the petitioner management. The petitioner management also took a stand that the respondent left the job on 21st February, 2004 voluntarily and, therefore, he had worked only for 105 days w.e.f. 6.4.2003 to 21.2.2004. Counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked a question to disclose the relation and connection between the two managements and he then apprised this Court that in fact the sole proprietor of respondent No. 2 management is none else but the son of Mr. S.N. Gupta, who is the proprietor of the petitioner M/s Chetan Industries. Nowhere in the present petition this connection has been disclosed by the petitioner. It is thus quite apparent that to deprive the respondent workman permanent employment and other statutory benefits, his services were placed by respondent No. 2 management with the petitioner management. Counsel for the petitioner also failed to satisfy this Court as to why the respondent workman was not recalled on his duty when he was alleged to have left the job on 21st February, 2004 without giving anything in writing. No such suggestion was given by the petitioner management to the respondent workman in his cross-examination suggesting that he himself had abandoned the job. W.P. (C) No. 673/2010 Page 5 of 5 7. I do not find any substance in the pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioner as there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. February 03, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR J. rkr