W.P.(C) 4077/2000 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4077/2000 % Date of decision: 31st May, 2010 M/S LEATHER TECH. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Neha Jain proxy for Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the ex-parte award dated 16th February, 2000 of the Labour Court against it, directing it to reinstate the respondent no.2 workman with full back wages and continuity of service. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 workman was never employed with it; that it had no notice of the dispute raised by the respondent no.2 workman, that it was never served with the notice of the Labour Court and the report of its service before the Labour Court is on the basis of forged signatures. The present writ petition was filed upon learning of the award. W.P.(C) 4077/2000 Page 2 of 4 2. This Court vide ex-parte order dated 28th July, 2000, while issuing notice of the writ petition stayed the operation of the award. On 29th November, 2000, the petitioner was directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent no.2 workman. The respondent no.2 workman was also given opportunity to file counter affidavit. However, the respondent no.2 workman inspite of several opportunities did not file the counter affidavit. However, in the meanwhile, on 7th March, 2002 the writ petition was dismissed in default of appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for restoration of the writ petition. It appears that on dismissal in default of the writ petition, the respondent no.2 workman had also applied for enforcement of the award and a recovery certificate of Rs.1,35,683/- was issued against the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 27th September, 2004 stayed the implementation of the award subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,35,683/- in this Court. The amount has been so deposited by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 workman however again failed to file a reply to the application for restoration of the writ petition inspite of repeated opportunities. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent no.2 workman also stopped appearing before this Court. In the circumstances, on 26th July, 2007 court notice was ordered to be issued to the counsel for the respondent no.2 workman. The respondent no.2 workman/his counsel failed to appear inspite of service of such notice also. In the circumstances, the application for restoration of the writ petition was allowed on 4th August, 2009 and the writ petition restored to its original position. The counsel for the respondent no.2 workman however appeared before this Court on 16th December, 2009 and informed that he had been appearing on behalf of Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate and sought time to inform Mr. W.P.(C) 4077/2000 Page 3 of 4 Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. The matter was as such adjourned to 5th May, 2010 and it was directed that the name of Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate be also shown in the cause list. However, inspite of the name of Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma having been shown in the cause list, none appeared for the respondent no.2 workman on 5th May, 2010. In the circumstances, the petition was directed to be listed on 26th May, 2010 with notation in the cause list of notice of default to the counsel for the respondent no.2 workman. Inspite of such notation also, none appeared for the respondent no.2 workman on 26th May, 2010 and the respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte and the matter posted for hearing today. 3. The ex-parte arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been heard. 4. The respondent no.2 workman has not controverted the categorical assertion of the petitioner of the respondent no.2 workman being not in its employment. A perusal of the record of the Labour Court requisitioned in this Court shows that the only evidence led by the respondent no.2 workman in proof of his employment with the petitioner is a ‘Gate Pass’ in the name of the respondent no.2 workman. However, merely because the respondent no.2 workman is shown to have entered into the premises of the petitioner, does not make him an employee of the petitioner. The demand notice allegedly sent by the respondent no.2 workman to the petitioner was also admittedly returned unserved/refused. In the circumstances, the averment of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 workman having never been employed with it and/or of the report W.P.(C) 4077/2000 Page 4 of 4 of service of notice of the Labour Court on the petitioner having been manipulated is believable. 5. Though the petitioner in the writ petition has sought setting aside of the ex- parte award and an opportunity to contest the claim but the respondent no.2 workman having failed to contest the present petition, no purpose would be served in relegating the matter to the Labour Court. The award dated 16th February, 2000 impugned in the present writ petition is thus set aside/quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Litigation expenses have already been paid. No order as to costs. The sum of Rs.1,35,683/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court as aforesaid together with the interest, if any, accrued thereon be returned by the Registry to the petitioner after 16th August, 2010. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 31st May, 2010 bs