WP(C) No.14607/2004 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.14607/2004 % Date of decision: 19th February, 2010 M/S KRISHNA GEARS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate. Versus SHRI GULAB SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. K.C. Dubey & Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocates. 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 in the Digest? No. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This writ petition seeks quashing of the recovery notice dated 7th June, 2004 issued by the respondent No.10 District Tehsildar, Ghaziabad purportedly in enforcement of the award dated 29th September, 2004 of the Labour Court-II, Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner M/s Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. that though the disputes had been raised by the respondents No.1 to 9 workmen qua the management of the petitioner, M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. and reference to the following effect was made - “Whether the services of Shri Gulab Singh, Jagjit Singh, B.N. Murthy, Kabutar, Mali Ram, Rajinder Prasad, Parkash Chand, Hari Kumar, Ram Murat, Jangli Ram, Ram Kishan, Satya Narain, Phagu, Harmesh Singh, Mohan Prasad, Sunil Kumar Ramjas, Rajinder Singh, Raj Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Suri, Chandershekhar Singh and Tirath Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” but the award is against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. only and not against the petitioner and is being wrongly enforced against it. WP(C) No.14607/2004 Page 2 of 4 2. A perusal of the award discloses that it was the claim of the respondents workmen before the Labour Court that the management of M/s Krishna Engineering Works, M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner are interconnected with each other with all three operating from the same premises and that the workmen had been working with these managements for several years at different posts and their services were transferable from one management to another. However the Labour Court found that out of 23 workmen on whose behalf claims were filed only nine had filed their affidavits in support of the averments and that the claims of the other workmen remained unsupported. The Labour Court found the workmen whose claims had been substantiated, to be employed with M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. and against whom award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages was made. However so far as the petitioner M/s Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the award finds that none of its workmen had led any evidence and as such no award against the petitioner was made. There is award of compensation of Rs.30,000/- for each of the respondent workmen, who have been found to be employees of M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. only. None of the respondent workmen have been found to be employees of petitioner. 3. This Court vide order dated 6th September, 2004 while issuing notice of the petition stayed operation of the award aforesaid only in so far as the petitioner was concerned. The said order continues to remain in force. 4. In view of the aforesaid unequivocal position, no need was felt to call upon the counsel for the petitioner to address. The counsel for the respondents workmen who has filed a counter affidavit opposing the petition was called upon to address as to how the award aforesaid could be executed against the petitioner. The counsel contends that it was/is the case of the respondents workmen that there was one management only of all the three concerns aforesaid including the petitioner and further informs that they all function from one premises. In the circumstances, he contends that the workmen are entitled to enforce the award against any of the concerns. WP(C) No.14607/2004 Page 3 of 4 5. Undoubtedly this was the case of the workmen before the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court neither returned any finding of the management being one nor returned any finding of any of the workmen in whose favour award had been made, having at any point of time being the employee of the petitioner or having any claim against the petitioner. It is also not as if the award is against all the three concerns. The award is for specific amounts against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. separately and the award against the said two concerns cannot be treated as an award against the petitioner. The contentions of the counsel for the respondents workmen thus have no force. 6. Faced with the same, the counsel contends that though he will enforce the award against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. but the respondents should be awarded interest for the period this petition has remained pending and for the period that there was an interim order. It may be noted that no interest has been granted under the award. The said request of the respondents workmen cannot also be acceded to. M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. are not even parties to this petition. The petitioner has sought quashing of the recovery under the award against itself only and not challenged the recovery under the award against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. This court also stayed the operation of the award only in so far as it was against the petitioner and not against M/s Krishna Engineering Works and M/s Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. If the respondents workmen owing to the pendency of the present petition have not enforced the award against whom it was made they have only themselves to blame. In any case, as aforesaid, the concerns against whom the award was made are not before this Court and the question of this Court giving any finding on the entitlement of the respondents workmen qua interest against the said concerns does not arise in these proceedings. 7. The petition therefore succeeds; a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the recovery notice dated 7th June, 2004 issued by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad against M/s Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. purportedly in enforcement of the award dated 29th September, 2004 and it is further declared that that the petitioner M/s Krishna Gears Pvt. Ltd. has no WP(C) No.14607/2004 Page 4 of 4 liability under the award dated 29th September, 2004. However, in the facts of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th February, 2010 pp